Monthly Archives: August 2014

Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs. and Apotex, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 29, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1416 LOURIE, DYK, REYNA August 22, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision that Ferring’s claims were not obvious affirmed because “critical dissolution limitations” not taught or suggested by prior art. And infringement by “final, coated commercial…tablets” was not shown. … Continue reading →

Posted in Functional limitations, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Injunction, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs. and Apotex, Inc. et al.

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

Docket No. 2014-1377 LOURIE, DYK, REYNA August 22, 2014 Brief Summary: DC conclusion of no infringement of amended ANDA after finding of infringement by original ANDA proper under Glaxo (FC 1997) (patent-holder must prove ANDA application “would likely sell an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs. and Apotex, Inc. et al.

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

Docket No. 2014-1377 LOURIE, DYK, REYNA August 22, 2014 Brief Summary: DC conclusion of no infringement of amended ANDA after finding of infringement by original ANDA proper under Glaxo (FC 1997) (patent-holder must prove ANDA application “would likely sell an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

Mformation Technologies, Inc. et al. (“MT”) and Research In Motion Limited et al. (“Blackberry”)

Posted on August 26, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1679, 2013-1123 PROST, SCHALL, HUGHES August 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Post-verdict DC grant of JMOL did not change claim construction but “at most clarified its previous instruction that was already present in the jury instructions.” Steps of method … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Method claims | Leave a comment

Abbvie Inc. et al. v. The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust (“Kennedy”)

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

Docket No. 2013-1545 DYK, WALLACH, CHEN August 21, 2014 Brief Summary: Post-URAA patents susceptible to obviousness-type double patenting challenge where there is overlapping subject matter and, for instance, extended term due to PTO delays and/or applicant’s choice of different priority … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Tyco Healthcare Group LP et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 12, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1386 NEWMAN (D), BRYSON, MOORE August 6, 2014 Brief Summary: In decision relating to ANDA for marketing generic temazepam (marketed by Tyco for insomnia as Restoril), grants of SJ that “Tyco’s assertion of the validity of its patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Antitrust, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

ScriptPro, LLC et al. v. Innovation Associates, Inc.

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1561 TARANTO, BRYSON, HUGHES August 6, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of invalidity for lack of written description reversed because specification’s use of “broadly includes” (specification) or “broadly comprises” (Abstract) indicated the inclusion of “sensors” was … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Written description | Leave a comment

Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 6, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1212 NEWMAN (C/D), CLEVENGER, REYNA August 1, 2014 Brief Summary: SJ of noninfringment of one of the four patents was vacated based on the revised definition of claim term to plain meaning. DC also found to have improperly … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement | Leave a comment