Monthly Archives: June 2017

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al.

SCOTUS No. 15-1039 (decided with 15-1195, Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.) June 12, 2017 Brief Summary: FC issuance of “a federal injunction prohibiting Sandoz from marketing Zarxio until 180 days after licensure” reversed since “the applicant may provide … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2017, -2026, -2027 IPR2014-01226, -01463, -01544; IPR2015-00825, -00852, -00854 REYNA, LINN, CHEN June 6, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s conclusion of invalidity for obviousness based on its claim construction found to be supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. … Continue reading

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

J Kyle Bass et al. (Petitioner) v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Patent Owner)

IPR2016-00254 U.S. Pat. No. 8,476,010B2 Final Written Decision (June 5, 2017) Brief Summary: Board found challenged claims of US 8,476,010B2 relating to formulations of the anesthetic propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) stored in containers having nonreactive, inert closures (sold as Diprivan) invalid for … Continue reading

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

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security, S.A. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1397 NEWMAN, LOURIE, MOORE June 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of attorney fees under § 285 because, e.g., “[e]nforcement of” Checkpoint’s right to “protect its own competitive advantage” “is not an ‘exceptional case’ under the patent law”. … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc. et al. (“ADS Security, L.P.”)

Docket No. 2016-2521 PROST, MAYER, WALLACH June 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC denial of request for attorney’s fees under § 285 reversed and remanded (due, e.g., to “Rothschild’s willful ignorance of the prior art”). Summary: ADS appealed DC denial of … Continue reading

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

In re: NuVasive, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1841 (IPR2014-00075) DYK, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: IPR Final Written Decision reversed as based on erroneous claim construction (e.g., expert testimony relied upon was “not about ‘lateral’ in the setting addressed in the ‘767 … Continue reading

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

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Docket No. 2016-1361 (IPR2014-00504) DYK, PLAGER, REYNA May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of no prior conception vacated and remanded because it did not follow “[t]he rule of reason” which “require[s] consideration of all pertinent evidence” (e.g., “[d]ocuments … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment