Monthly Archives: October 2017

Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Case IPR2017-00731 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,441 B1) Decision Granting Request for Rehearing October 26, 2017 Brief summary: Petition for Rehearing granted as prior decision lacked of construction of the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative” which the Board … Continue reading →

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

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.

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

Docket No. 2017-1115 NEWMAN, LOURIE, HUGES October 26, 2017 Brief Summary: DC conclusion that the asserted claims of its US 6,486,150 “directed to a stable process for preparing a stable formulation” of the antibiotic ertapenem (marketed by Merck as Invanz®) … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

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

Docket No. 2-15-2072 (IPR2014-00245) PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH October 24, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB denial of SP’s Motion to Amend because SP did not show the proposed new claims “recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ vacated and … Continue reading →

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

Art+Com InnovationPool GmbH v. Google LLC

Posted on October 25, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1016 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 20, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC entry of jury anticipation finding affirmed; finding of no infringement by Google was not reached by the FC panel. Summary: Art+Com (“AC”) appealed DC entry of judgment … Continue reading →

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

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC / Arista Networks, Inc. v. ITC

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

Docket Nos. 2016-2563, -2539 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH September 27, 2017 Brief summary: ITC decision that Arista’s importation of switches lacking software infringed (induced and contributory) Cisco’s patents affirmed. Summary: This decision relates to the ITC’s § 337 investigation based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC (“SSI”) v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al. (“CTA”)

Posted on October 23, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1233 REYNA, LINN (D), WALLACH October 18, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that SSI’s claims are ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., not directed to “a new type of bankcard, turnstile, or database”). Summary: SSI appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Company, LLC et al.

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

Docket No. 2016-2583 DYK, LINN, HUGHES October 19, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision that Merck’s claims relating to NuvaRing® reversed and remanded (e.g., “the only way to arrive at the hypothetical ring is by using the ‘581 patent as … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.

Posted on October 19, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1728 PROST, CLEVENGER, REYNA October 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of UW’s motion to dismiss because SM’s patents are patent-ineligible under § 101 affirmed ((e.g., “not directed to an improvement in computer functionality” (Alice step one) and … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Ignite USA, LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC

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

Docket No. 2016-2747 (IPR2015-01034) PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO October 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Claim construction and obviousness determination in PTAB FWD regarding Ignite’s patent affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Summary: Ignite appealed PTAB final written decision following IPR finding … Continue reading →

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

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation

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

Docket No. 2016-2613 (IPR2015-00650) NEWMAN, DYK, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that Owens did not show obviousness during IPR reversed (not remanded) under a corrected claim construction. Summary: Fast Felt sued Owens for infringement of its US … Continue reading →

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