Monthly Archives: February 2017

Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (“CAD”) v. Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Posted on February 28, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2015-02776 (US 7,582,621B2) Final Written Decision February 23, 2017 Brief Summary: Board found CAD had shown invalidity for obviousness of the ‘621 claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: CAD petitioned for IPR of Anacor’s US 7,582,621 B2 on … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp. et al.

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

Docket No. 2016-1243 (IPR2014-00538) NEWMAN, LOURIE, O’MALLEY (D) February 13, 2017 Brief Summary: Board claim construction based in part on deletion of statement from provisional application incorporated by reference in the patent and anticipation conclusion affirmed. Summary: MPHJ appealed Board … Continue reading →

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

Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. et al. v. The Toro Co. and Exmark Manuf. Co.

Posted on February 22, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2433, -2514 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL February 16, 2017 Brief Summary: The DC’s grant of a preliminary injunction against Toro was affirmed. Summary: Toro/Exmark (a wholly owned subsidiary of Toro) appealed DJ grant of a preliminary injunction (PI) to … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Injunction, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1174 (appeal from IPR2013-00596) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL February 14, 2017 Brief Summary: Board’s obviousness decision following IPR vacated and remanded as it failed to properly explain its conclusions. Revised 18-month rule regarding claim construction explained. Summary: PersonalWeb (PW) … Continue reading →

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

In Re: Lawrence B. Lockwood

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

Docket No. 2016-1371 PROST, MOORE, CHEN February 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board claim construction and finding of anticipation affirmed. Summary: Lockwood appealed Board affirmance following ex parte reexamination requested by an anonymous third party of the examiner’s determination that … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Prosecution History Estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

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

PGR2015-00011 (US 8,859,623 B1) Post-Grant Review Decision November 14, 2016 Brief Summary: Preamble found not to limit the claim; petition for PGR found not to show unpatentability of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: The grounds for … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Post-grant review, Preamble | Leave a comment

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Novartis AG

Posted on February 15, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2016-01461 (US 9,006,224 B2) Decision denying institution February 13, 2017 Brief Summary: Roxane’s petition for IPR of Novartis’ US 9,006,224 related to the use of Afinitor® (everolimus) to treat pancreatic cancer dismissed as a reasonable likelihood of success in showing … Continue reading →

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

Wockhardt Bio AG v. Jannsen Oncology, Inc.

Posted on February 14, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2016-01582 (US 8,882,438 B2) Decision Instituting IPR January 17, 2017 Brief Summary: IPR instituted as Wockhardt showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, Amerigan did not need to be named, and no “second bite at the apple by an identical petitioner”. … Continue reading →

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

Shire Development, LLC et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Posted on February 13, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1785 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES February 10, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that Watson’s ANDA Product to Shire’s Lialda® reversed for not meeting the Markush requirements of the claims. Summary: Shire sued Watson for infringement of US 6,773,720 directed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | 2 Comments

Covidien LP v. Univ. Florida Res. Fndtn. Inc. (UFRF)

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

IPR2016-01274, -01275, -01276 (US 7,062,251 B2) Order Dismissing Petitions for IPR January 25, 2017 Brief Summary: Petitions for IPR dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of UFRF (“an arm of the State of Florida”, an “unconsenting state that has … Continue reading →

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