Monthly Archives: March 2015

Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC et al. v. Michele K. Lee (Cadence Pharma., Intervenors)

Docket No. 2013-1206 PROST, NEWMAN, LINN March 26, 2015 Brief Summary: PTO patent application revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge under the APA. Summary: Exela petitioned the PTO to “reconsider and withdraw” its revival of a … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Patent Prosecution, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

Kennametal Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tools Company

Docket No. 2014-1350 PROST, NEWMAN, LINN March 25, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB findings of anticipation and obviousness affirmed (prior art claim provided “a specific hook back into the [] disclosure for the further description of how that coating is applied”; … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Flexiteek Americas, Inc. et al. v. Plasteak, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1214 PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH March 19, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC claim construction affirmed as consistent with the specification and drawings (“no other reference…that provides an alternative definition or illustration”). Summary: Flexiteek appealed DC construction of the claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 13-352 Decided March 24, 2015 Brief Summary: “[I]ssue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts” but may also apply “where a single issue is before a … Continue reading

Posted in Issue Preclusion, Trademarks, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Exela PharmSci Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1184 REYNA, LINN, WALLACH March 23, 2015 Brief Summary: DC findings regarding claim construction, infringement determination (DOE) and no obviousness affirmed. Summary: Exela appealed DC claim construction of certain claim terms of US 6,028,222 and 6,992,218 relating to … Continue reading

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

Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v. Lupin Limited et al.

Docket No. 2013-1630 NEWMAN, PLAGER, MOORE March 20, 2015 Brief Summary: DC finding Senju’s reexamined composition and method claims relating to gatifloxacin eye drops with added EDTA would have been obvious affirmed. Summary: This case relates to a generic gatifloxacin … Continue reading

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

In Re Hitachi Metals, Ltd.

Docket No. 2014-1689 PROST, PLAGER, WALLACH March 17, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that later-filed patent was invalid for double-patenting affirmed since “consisting essentially of” language (i.e., “can include those additional elements which do not materially affect the basic … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1060, 2014-1091 TARANTO, BRYSON, CHEN March 17, 2015 Brief Summary: Certain claims found not to be obvious as “beyond the technical ability of a skilled artisan”; another obvious as it would have been a “straightforward and commonsensical step” … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Enzo Biochem Inc. et al. v. Applera Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1321 PROST, NEWMAN (D), LINN March 16, 2015 Brief Summary: DC construction of claims covering both direct and indirect detection of a signaling moiety reversed as inconsistent with the plain language and the specification. Summary: Applera appealed DC … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment

Vicor Corporation v. SynQor, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1578 TARANTO, MAYER, CLEVENGER March 13, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: “Combined reference” of patent and patent incorporated by reference held to anticipate claims, reversing Board decision of no anticipation. Board’s reversal of obviousness rejections were vacated and remanded. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness | Leave a comment