Monthly Archives: November 2017

PTO issues “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products”

PTO Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products Update following Oct. 4, 2017 FC (en banc) opinion (Aqua Products, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO), Docket No. 2015-1177 (IPR2013-00159): USPTO issued guidance on Nov. 21, 2017, explaining that … Continue reading

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

Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC et al. v. Apple, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2324 PROST, CHEN, HUGHES November 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC claim construction and finding of no infringement by Apple affirmed. Summary: Rembrandt appealed DC grant of SJ of noninfringement by Apple’s “mobile products” (iPhone, iPad, and iTouch) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly et al. v. Perrigo / Amneal

Docket No. 2016-2555, -2614 CHEN, PLAGER, HUGHES November 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision that certain claims are not obvious (e.g., the prior art does not teach away); that certain other claims are obvious (e.g., alternatives theories presented here … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.

Docket No. 2016-2607, -2650 DYK, MOORE, TARANTO November 21, 2017 Brief summary: DC conclusion of no indefiniteness, that “ATC was entitled to the defense of absolute intervening rights”, and denial of enhanced damages affirmed. Award of lost profits and permanent … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Indefiniteness, Injunction, Lost Profits | Leave a comment

BASF Corporation v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1770 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO November 20, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding of indefiniteness reversed and remanded (e.g., no “context-specific inquiry into whether particular functional language actually provides the required reasonable certainty”). Summary: BASF appealed the “effective for catalyzing”/“effective … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Mexichema Amanco Holding v. Honeywell International

Docket No. 2016-2084, -2085, 2017-1050 PROST, DYK, CHEN November 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB decisions reversing Examiner’s definition of “azeotrope-like” affirmed as the term is explicitly defined by the specifications and the Examiner’s definition would have read the term … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

In re: Micron Technology, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-138 TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES November 15, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of Micron’s TC Heartland-based venue objection under FCRP 12(h)(1)(A) vacated and remanded for consideration under the “less bright-line more discretionary framework” of Dietz (US 2016). Summary: Micron … Continue reading

Posted in Venue | Leave a comment

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1010 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO November 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision of no infringement of Amgen’s process patent by Apotex’s ABLA applications regarding Amgen’s Neulasta® and Neupogen® affirmed. Summary: Amgen appealed DC conclusion that Amgen failed to … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

Promega Corporation et al. v. Life Technologies Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2013-1011, -1029, -1376 PROST, MAYER, CHEN November 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of Life’s motion for JMOL that Promega failed to prove infringement under § 271(a) and (f)(1), and its “vacatur of the [DC’s] denial of Promega’s … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Lost Profits, Royalties | Leave a comment

Sanofi, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Sandoz Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2722, -2726 PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO November 9, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision finding inducement to infringe based on proposed drug label, no obviousness in view of prior art clinical trial documents, or prosecution history estoppel affirmed. Summary: Sanofi … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment