Monthly Archives: March 2016

Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC

Docket Nos. 2015-1513, -1514 MOORE, TARANTO, HUGHES March 15, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB confirmation of claims claims 14-17 and 34-36 of Acceleron’s US 6,948,021 as not anticipated affirmed; cancellation of claims 3 (“that the Board denied Acceleron notice and a … Continue reading

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

In re: Cree, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1365 CHEN, CLEVENGER, BRYSON March 21, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision of obviousness affirmed because, e.g., “the Board provided a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references” and no nexus shown between nexus between claims and evidence of … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1116, -1119 IPR2013-00132, IPR2013-00584 MOORE, REYNA (C), WALLACH March 23, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision that certain grounds in petition for IPR were redundant found to be within its authority and without effect on estoppel. Board decision that … Continue reading

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

MAG Aerospace Ind. Inc. et al. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1370, -1426 PROST, MAYER, REYNA March 23, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decisions of no infringement based on Markman claim construction and barring B/E from alleging invalidity under assignor estoppel affirmed. Summary: MAG appealed from DC grant of SJ … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Claim Construction, Infringement | Leave a comment

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-2029, -2030, -2032 IPR2014-00377, IPR2014-00378, IPR2014-00379 PROST, NEWMAN, LOURIE March 24, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decisions affirming the patentability of Depomed’s patents because Purdue failed to show patents would have been obvious by a preponderance of the … Continue reading

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

Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC et al. v. Biogen MA Inc.

Case IPR2015-01993 U.S. Pat. No. 8,399,514 B2 March 22, 2016 Brief Summary: IPR for US 8,399,514 B2 relating to Biogen’s multiple sclerosis (MS) drug Tecifedra (dimethyl fumarate) instituted because prior art encompassed range including the claimed 480 mg/day dosage. Summary: … Continue reading

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

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. / Astrazeneca AB v. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1456 and -1460 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY (C), TARANTO March 18, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decisions denying Mylan’s motions to dismiss actions based on its ANDA filing affirmed because, e.g., Mylan’s ANDA confirms “a plan to engage in real-world marketing” … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Generics / ANDA, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Warner Chilcott Company, LLC et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1588 LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES March 18, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: The FC panel found no error with the DC’s conclusion of obviousness (“pharmaceutically effective absorption would have been a logical and obtainable goal with bioavailability that is significantly … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

ULF Bamberg et al. v. Jodi A. Dalvey et al.

Docket No. 2015-1548 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL March 9, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision in an interference that Bamberg’s specification did not disclose the claimed subject matter (“Bamberg…specifically distinguished white layers that melt below 220oC as producing an ‘undesired’ result”) and … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

In re: Queen’s University at Kingston, Parteq Research and Development Innovations

Docket No. 2015-145 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA (D) March 7, 2016 Brief Summary: “Patent-agent privilege” exists for those activities “reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent appplications or other proceeding before the Office involving a patent application … Continue reading

Posted in Privilege | Leave a comment