Monthly Archives: October 2015

Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. et al.ti

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

Docket No. 2015-1071, 2015-1105 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO October 29, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision of non-infringment affirmed based on claim construction. Arguments invoking the doctrine of claim differentiation were not persuasive. DC decision of no invalidity for anticipation or obviousness … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment

Phigenix, Inc. (Petitioner) v. Immunogen, Inc. (Patent Owner)

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

IPR2014-00676 U.S. Pat. No. 8,337,856B2 October 27, 2015 Brief Summary: Claims 1-8 of the ‘856 directed to metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer treatment Kadcyla® (ado-trastuzumab emtansine (huMAb4D5-8/ maytanisoid conjugate)) not found unpatentable because prior art taught risk of hepatic toxicity for … Continue reading →

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

Coalition for Affordable Drugs II, LLC (Petitioner; “CA”) v. Celgene Corporation (Patent Owner)

Posted on October 28, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2015-01103 U.S. Pat. No. 6,315,720B2 October 27, 2015 Brief Summary: CA’s Petition to institute IPR against claims 1-32 of the ‘720 patent listed on the Orange Book for Celgene’s multiple myeloma drugs Thalomid®, Revlimid®, and Pomalyst® granted for obviousness. Summary: … Continue reading →

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

Coalition for Affordable Drugs II, LLC (Petitioner; “CA”) v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Patent Owner)

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

IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-010193 U.S. Pat. No. 7,056,886B2 October 23, 2015 Brief Summary: CA’s two petitions to institute IPRs against NPS’ U.S. Pat. No. 7,056,886B2 relating to NPS/Shire’s drug Gattex granted based on allegations of obviousness. Summary: CA filed two petitions … Continue reading →

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

In Re: Steve Morsa

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

Docket No. 2015-1107 PROST, NEWMAN (D), O’MALLEY October 19, 2015 Brief Summary: FC panel “affirm[ed] the Board’s use of one section in the specification solely as it relates to the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art” … Continue reading →

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

Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC (Petitioner) (“CAD”) v. Pharmacyclics, Inc. (Patent Owner)

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

IPR2015-01076 (US Pat. No. 8,754,090B2) PTAB Final Decision Denying Institution of IPR October 19, 2015 Brief Summary: Petition for IPR on the basis of anticipation and obviousness dismissed as CAD could not show alleged prior art qualified as a “printed … Continue reading →

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

Alexander Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC et al.

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

Docket No. 2014-1406 MOORE, WALLACH, TARANTO October 2, 2015 Update: Cert. denied 6/27/16 (regarding “automatic assignment” issue) Brief Summary: Dr. Shukh’s assignment conveyed legal title to Seagate so he had no ownership or financial issue in six patents. But decision … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nidec Motor Corporation

Posted on October 13, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2015-00762 U.S. Pat. No. 7,626,349B2 October 5, 2015 Brief Summary: Expanded Board granted previously denied Motion for Joinder, finding § 315(c) permits the joinder of any person who properly files a petition under § 311, including a petition who is … Continue reading →

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

In re Thomas Steed et al.

Posted on October 10, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1458 NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, DYK October 1, 2015 Brief Summary: Board decision on obviousness affirmed where applicant failed to provide an effective Rule 131 Declaration showing conception and diligent (actual) reduction to practice. Summary: Steed et al. appealed Board … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1407 LOURIE, WALLACH, HUGHES October 2, 2015 Brief Summary: DC finding that Spectrum’s claims to a “substantially pure” compound (at least 92%) would have been obvious in view of prior art to 50/50 mixture and pure compound (no … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment