Monthly Archives: January 2017

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Insitutional LLC et al.

Posted on January 27, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1155, -1259 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO January 26, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that patented invention was not derived from “someone at the FDA” or shown to obvious affirmed. Summary: Mylan appealed DC rejection of its invalidity assertions regarding … Continue reading →

Posted in Derivation of Invention, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al.

Posted on January 26, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1616 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY January 18, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that claims to trading technology software is patentable subject matter affirmed. Summary: CQG appealed DC decision that US 6,772,132 and 6,766,304 relating to “a method for … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. et al. v. Kaneka Corporation

Posted on January 24, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1390 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY January 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ vacated for faulty claim construction and remanded. Summary: Kaneka appealed DC grant of SJ to Zhejiang for noninfringement of the asserted claims of US … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd. et al.

Posted on January 20, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1449 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO January 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that “visually negligible” is indefinite reversed as the meaning of the term is not “purely subjective” in view of the specification and prosecution history. Summary: Sonix appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. USPTO (Intervenor)

Posted on January 17, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1516. -1530 (IPR2012-00042) CHEN, MAYER, STOLL February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision after IPR affirmed and FC finds “the Board need only issue a final written decision with respect to claims on which [IPR] has been initiated”. … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. et al.

Posted on January 16, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-2067 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 12, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision finding of direct infringement by physicians and induced infringement (§ 271(b)) by Teva as well as no obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva et al. (“Teva”) appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Differentiation, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Andre Walker v. Health International Corporation et al. (“HSN”)

Posted on January 12, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1676 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 6, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel concluded “[t]his appeal was frivolous as filed” and included “numerous mischaracterizations of clear authority” (Octocom, FC 1990); DC award of attorneys’ fees found reasonable (and it doubled … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.

Posted on January 10, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1544 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES January 9, 2017 Brief Summary: Phigenix found not to have Article III standing for its appeal of PTAB final written decision after IPR. Summary: Phigenix appealed PTAB final written decision after IPR that claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Posted on January 9, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

  The USPTO released statistics on AIA petitions (11/30/16) which are available here: Click to access aia_statistics_november2016.pdf The PTO data includes Covered Business Method (CBM) and Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) but the Inter Partes Review (IPR) is by far the most-used … Continue reading →

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

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation

Posted on January 6, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1944 (IPR2013-00601, affirmed with precedential opinion; see Summary below) Docket No. 2015-1945 (IPR2013-602, affirmed without opinion (Rule 36 judgment)) Docket No. 2015-1946 (IPR2013-00636, affirmed without opinion (Rule 36 judgment)) DYK, BRYSON, REYNA September 16, 2016 Update (1/4/17): Rehearing … Continue reading →

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