Monthly Archives: April 2015

Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee (USPTO)

Docket No. 2014-1728 PROST, TARANTO, FOGEL (DJ) April 10, 2015 Brief Summary: Consent judgment found not to require PTO to terminate reexamination of litigated patents; not appealable as PTO decision not to terminate is not a “final decision” under the … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal | Leave a comment

Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) v. Microstrategy, Inc. et al. (“MS”)

Docket No. 2014-1094 CHEN, LINN, HUGHES April 3, 2015 Brief Summary: Claim construction determination based on prosecution history affirmed (applies 2015 SCOTUS Teva decision). Grant of SJ on written description and enablement reversed as expert testimony was not simply conclusory … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Insite Vision Inc. (“Pfizer”) v. Sandoz, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1065 PROST, NEWMAN, LINN April 9, 2015 Brief Summary: FC found no clear error or abuse of discretion in its conclusions that the patents-in-suit were not obvious (prior art “discloses a ‘laundry list of active ingredients’” and expert … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase et al.

Docket No. 2014-1724 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, HUGHES (D) April 1, 2015 Brief Summary: FC determined it did not have jurisdiction over a motion to stay litigation regarding patents that are the subject of “pending CBMR petitions on which the PTAB has … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Reviews | Leave a comment

Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1282, 2014-1291 TARANTO, MAYER, CLEVENGER March 31, 2015 Brief Summary: Contrary to the DC decision, the Court found Apotex had alleged a “substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment