Monthly Archives: October 2016

Profoot, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1216 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 26, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC construction and judgment based on claim construction affirmed basred in part on prosecution history of parental patent. Summary: ProFoot appealed DC stipulated judgment of noninfringement following claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Swiss Pharma International AG v. Biogen IDEC

IPR2016-00915 October 20, 2016 Brief Summary: SP’s petition for IPR of US 8,349,321 directed to a particular formulation of natalizumab (marketed by Biogen IDEC as TYSABRI®) for obviousness denied. Summary: Swiss Pharma (SP) filed a petition for IPR of US … Continue reading

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

Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1977, -1986, -1987 LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2016 Brief Summary: Medtronic’s petition for rehearing following the PTAB (“Board”) decision to discontinue IPR denied as barred under 35 USC § 314(d) (IPR decision is “final and nonappealable”). Summary: … Continue reading

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

Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1200 PROST, REYNA, HUGHES October 14, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on “clear and unequivocal statements” in the specification and during prosecution affirmed. Summary: Poly-America appealed DC claim construction of the term “short seal” in US … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

In Re: Constantin Efthymiopoulos

Docket No. 2016-1003 PROST, NEWMAN (D), BRYSON October 18, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision that claims to methods for administration of zanamavir by mouth inhalation (Relenza®) would have been obvious affirmed. Summary: Inventor CE appealed Board affirmance of Examiner’s obviousness … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Strakan Int. S.A.R.L. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (Watson)

Docket No. 2016-1146 MOORE, TARANTO, HUGHES October 14, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision that patents related to Endo’s transdermal testosterone gel product Fortesta® would have not have been obvious affirmed. Summary: This opinion relates to Endo’s transdermal testosterone gel … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

MIT, et al. v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1881 O’MALLEY, CHEN, STOLL October 13, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of infringement and no invalidity based on finding of no prosecution history estoppel or indefiniteness affirmed. Summary: MIT appealed DC claim construction after the parties stipulated to … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment