Monthly Archives: November 2015

Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1179 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN November 13, 2015 Brief Summary:  PTO finding that negative limitation supported by specification lacking explicit disclaimer affirmed, although “in all cases, a patentee may [not] arbitrarily dissect its invention by amending the claims in … Continue reading

Posted in Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1215, 2015-1226 PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO November 16, 2015 Brief Summary:  Board decision that Ariosa did not met its burden to show obviousness during IPR found erroneous FC panel “cannot confidently discern whether the Board…was actually relying on a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC (“ASR”) v. X-Body Equipment, Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2014-1829 PROST, MOORE, STOLL November 12, 2015 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ SJ that X-Body’s Acculoader device does not infringe US 8,061,950, literally or under DOE, based on dictionary definition of “proximate end” since “‘950 patent did … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1197, 2015-1204, 2015-1259 WALLACH, BRYSON, HUGHES November 12, 2015 Brief Summary: DC conclusion that the certificate of correction was properly issued affirmed (“simply correcting an error in the diagram of Formula 3 without changing the scope of the … Continue reading

Posted in Certificate of Correction, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Cipla, Ltd.

Docket Nos. 2014-1634, 2014-1635 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES November 10, 2015 Brief Summary: DC finding that claims to treatment of a species of irritable bowel syndrome would have been obvious in view of genus method claim in prior art patent, other … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. / Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2014-1274, 2014-1277, 2014-1276, 2014-1278 DYK(D), MOORE, WALLACH November 10, 2015 Brief Summary: Both of Teva’s and Amphastar’s products were therefore found not to be “‘made by’ Momenta’s patented process for the purposes of § 271(g).” However, Amphastar’s activities … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement | Leave a comment

Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

Docket No. 2015-1575, -1576 NEWMAN, DYK, TARANTO November 5, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB conclusion that claims 1-4 of Belden’s patent would have been obvious affirmed. Its conclusions that claims 5 and 6 would not have been obvious due to no … Continue reading

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