Monthly Archives: July 2016

Verinata Health, Inc. / Stanford / Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1970 REYNA, CLEVENGER, WALLACH July 26, 2016 Brief Summary: DC order denying Illumina’s request to compel arbitration with Ariosa affirmed because Ariosa’s “counterclaims all rise or fall on the scope determination of licensed intellectual property rights, a matter … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.

Docket No. 2015-1300 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, CHEN July 25, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision of obviousness reversed because petitioner failed to show a motivation to combine, the burden to do so “never shifts to the patentee”, and “the Board is [not] … Continue reading

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

Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1725 MOORE, BRYSON, REYNA July 22, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ to Apple of non-infringement of the claims of Unwired’s ‘446, ‘260 and ‘092 patents vacated; grant of SJ of no infringement by Apple of Unwired’s … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy

Docket No. 2015-1930 NEWMAN, LOURIE, CHEN July 20, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision that Suunto lacked sufficient minimum contacts with DE to support specific jurisdication vacated and remanded for a determination of “whether exercising jurisdiction over Suunto would be reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Docket No. 2015-1038, -1044 MOORE, O’MALLEY, CHEN July 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC denial of JMOL to Kohler on obviousness and WD grounds affirmed. Decision of willfulness affirmed under Halo (US 2016) (“infringer’s subjective bad faith alone may support an … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. Deca International Corp.

Docket No. 2016-1325, -1326 TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES July 15, 2016 Brief Summary: SkyHawke appeal of Board confirmation of its claims because “claim construction relied on…to reach that decision should be corrected” dismissed (no issue preclusion and cannot appeal reasoning supporting … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp.

DC Delaware Case 1:13-cv-01644-RGA Affirmed by FC panel 7/14/16 (Docket No. 2015-1962) PROST, SCHALL, CHEN July 14, 2016 Brief Summary: FC affirmed DC DE finding of invalidity of US 6,140,346 due to the indefiniteness of the term “enhanced” in e.g., … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2015-1244 MOORE, TARANTO, HUGHES May 12, 2016 Brief Summary: DC finding that database-related patents are invalid under § 101 reversed; grant of SJ for anticipation vacated; and judgment of non-infringement affirmed. Summary: Enfish appealed DC finding that the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Patentability | Leave a comment

The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) v. Hospira, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1469, -1504 En banc opinion July 11, 2016 Brief Summary: En banc opinion concluded “a product produced pursuant to the claims of a product-by-process patent is ‘on sale’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)…must be the subject of a … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1308 WALLACH, BRYSON, TARANTO July 5, 2016 Update: Petition for a writ of certiorari denied (12/12/16) Brief Summary: DC grant of preliminary injunction against Apotex regarding a biosimilar Neulasta® affirmed (“an applicant must provide a reference product sponsor … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment