Monthly Archives: April 2014

In re Anders Wallen

Posted on April 28, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1622 WALLACH, SCHALL, HUGHES April 23, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision vacated-in-part as it “‘cannot simply reach conclusions based on its own understanding or experiments-or on its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense” … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Novel Laboratories, Inc.

Posted on April 25, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1438 DYK (C/D), PROST, MOORE (D) April 22, 2014 Brief Summary: DC claim construction reversed and infringement finding remanded. Preamble term “a patient” considered limitation. Braintree’s patent found not anticipated, obvious or indefinite. Judge Dyk and Judge Moore … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Natco Pharma Limited et al.

Posted on April 24, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1418 RADER (D), PROST, CHEN April 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Earlier filed (earlier expiring) / later issued patent may serve as obviousness-type double patenting reference for later filed (later expiring) / earlier issued patent (URAA patents). Dissent argued … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA et al.

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1489 NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH April 21, 2014 Brief Summary: Jury verdict findings that Sanofi’s patent covering a combination of drugs for treatment of hypertension (Tarka®) is not invalid for obviousness (to try), Glenmark was not entitled to a … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation et al.

Posted on April 21, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1298 MOORE, SCHALL, REYNA April 18, 2014 Brief Summary: The FC panel affirmed the DC grant of SJ of no antitrust violations to 3D. Summary: Desotech appealed grant of SJ of no antitrust violations to 3D (patent claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Antitrust | Leave a comment

University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.

Posted on April 17, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1575 LOURIE, DYK (D), O’MALLEY April 10, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Construction of means-plus-function limitation in independent claim affirmed. Preamble term of dependent claim found not part of the apparatus but “drawn to an intended use.” Willful infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Infringement, Means-plus-function, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Trebro Manufacturing, Inc. v. Firefly Equipment, LLC and Steven R. Aposhian

Posted on April 16, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1437 RADER April 9, 2014 Brief Summary: Decision denying preliminary injunction related to sod harverster patent vacated because DC abused its discretion. The opinion also explained “the fact that Trebro does not presently practice the patent does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement, Injunction | Leave a comment

Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and Genentech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al.

Posted on April 15, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1128 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, BRYSON April 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision of invalidity for obviousness affirmed because prior art rendered claims “[a]t the very least…obvious to try.” Judge Newman’s dissent argued decision is wrong because, in part, … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In Re Teles AG et al.

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1297 DYK, MOORE, WALLACH April 4, 2014 Brief Summary: Transfer under 35 USC § 145 (2006) is only available to patent applicants, not patent owners, in view of 1999 amendments to the Patent Act. “[U]nrecited functional limitations” may … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Docket No. 2011-1611 RADER, DYK, O’MALLEY December 12, 2011 Non-precedential Brief Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated the DC decision because it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and did not weight the evidence or make any findings regarding Mylan’s invalidity … Continue reading →

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. | Leave a comment