Monthly Archives: July 2015

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Petitioner) v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patent Owner)

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Case IPR2015-00548 Patent No. 7,895,059B2 July 28, 2015 Brief Summary: Par’s petition for IPR U.S. Pat. No. 7,895,059 relating to Jazz’s Xyrem® granted, the PTAB finding reasonable likelihood Par would prevail on the basis of obviousness. FDA Advisory Committee records … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.

Posted on July 29, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1155 LOURIE, DYK, MOORE July 28, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL for obviousness reversed and remanded because reasonable jury could have concluded, as this jury did or was presumed to conclude, that prior art was not … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re: Posco, Posco America Corporation

Posted on July 27, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In re: Posco, Posco America Corporation Docket No. 2015-112 NEWMAN, DYK, HUGHES (C) July 22, 2015 Brief Summary: Request for writ of mandamus regarding modification of a protective order allowing foreign courts to access POSCO’s proprietary information granted because the … Continue reading →

Posted in Discovery | Leave a comment

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Petitioner) v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patent Owner)

Posted on July 24, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Case IPR2014-00360 (IPR2014-01365 joined) Patent No. 8,329,216B2 July 23, 2015 Update: FC panel affirmed decision (Docket No. 2016-1217, Nov. 8, 2016) Brief Summary: Amneal’s IPR petition found not to have demonstrated obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence because: 1) … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1499 NEWMAN (C/D), LOURIE, CHEN (D) July 21, 2015 Update:  See SCOTUS June 12, 2017 decision reversing the FC regarding 8A (“the applicant may provide [180 day] notice either before or after receiving FDA approval”). Brief Summary: Opinion … Continue reading →

Posted in Biosimilars | Leave a comment

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation

Posted on July 22, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1808 LOURIE, DYK, MOORE July 17, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB dismissal of Airbus’ cross-appeal dismissed vacated and remanded because “the determination of a substantial new question of patentability is irrelevant to new claims proposed by a patentee during … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment

Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc.

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1547, -1548, -1550 PROST, SCHALL, WALLACH July 17, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB decision following IPR regarding obviousness, anticipation and refusal to amend Columbia’s claims as it did not show the same would “establish patentability over the prior … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness | Leave a comment

SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc.

Posted on July 16, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1712 O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, HUGHES July 10, 2015 Brief Summary: FC found no abuse of discretion in DC’s denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 USC § 285, concluding that “[e]ven under the new, lower standard for … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Lupin Limited v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Case IPR2015-00405 U.S. Pat. No. 6,436,989B1 July 9, 2015 Brief Summary: Petition to institute IPR ordered for claims 1, 4-8 and 9 of Vertex’s US 6,436,989B1 encompassing fosamprenavir calcium (marketed as Lexiva). The petition was denied as to claims 2, … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment

In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1301 NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, DYK July 8, 2015 Brief Summary: Decision by PTO on whether or not to institute IPR is “final and nonappealable”. Broadest reasonable interpretation of claims is the appropriate standard during IPR. Summary: Cuozzo appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment