Monthly Archives: November 2016

Akorn, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

IPR2015-01205 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,114,319) November 22, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB final decision found all claims of US 6,114,319 relating to Alcon’s ophthalmic emulsion Durezol® unpatentable for obviousness. Summary: This IPR relates to previously reexamined US 6,114,319 encompassing “difluprednate emulsion[s] … Continue reading

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

In re: Rearden LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-125 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL November 17, 2016 Brief Summary: Writ of mandamus regarding DC denial of evidentiary ruling denied because, e.g., “petitioners have alternative avenues to obtain meaningful review of these arguments after trial”. Summary: Rearden et al. … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal | Leave a comment

Alfred E. Mann Foundation et al. (“AEM”) v. Cochlear Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2015-1580, -1606, -1607 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES November 17, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of indefiniteness of certain claims for failure to disclosure an algorithm affirmed; another found supported by “adequate defining structure”. Finding of no willfulness vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Software, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1028 LOURIE, MAYER, O’MALLEY November 17, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC claim construction regarding the claimed capsule size and decision to transfer affirmed. Summary: Roxane appealed from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement of its US 8,563,032 relating to … Continue reading

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

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-2043 (IPR2014-00233) MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY November 15, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” vacated and remanded as the standard is only “reasonable”, not “continuous”. Claim construction determination also vacated and remanded … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

In Re: NuVasive, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1672, -1673 (IPR2013-00507 and -00508) MOORE, WALLACH, TARANTO November 9, 2016 Brief Summary: IPR507 decision cancelling certain claims for obviousness affirmed. IPR508 decision remanded as to claims 16 and 17 because “Medtronic’s [IPR508] petition did not notify NuVasive … Continue reading

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

REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj

Docket No. 2015-1773 (IPR2013-00578) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN November 8, 2016 Brief Summary: Board determination that certain claims were anticipated affirmed because “a person of ordinary skill could readily convert Craig’s area percetages to the weight percentages recited in the claims … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice | Leave a comment

Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1180 NEWMAN, PLAGER, REYNA November 1, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility reversed because, e.g., the claimed “distributed enhancement was a critical advancement over the prior art…an unconventional technological solution…to a technological problem”. Summary: Amdocs appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-197-82, 2015-2044 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES October 27, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision that “elongated” is indefinite affirmed (“an ordinarily skilled artisan cannot, without additional information, differentiate an ‘elongated’ core from a ‘non-elongated’ core”) but indefiniteness decision regarding … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment