Monthly Archives: December 2017

Nintendo of America Inc. et al. v. iLife Technologies, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others (e.g., “prototype has … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Array Biopharma Inc.

Docket Nos. 2017-1079 (IPR2015-00754) MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH December 26, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB denial of Takeda’s contingent motion to amend its claims during IPR vacated and remanded as “the PTAB did not provide an opinion as to any of … Continue reading

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

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.

Docket No. 2016-1346 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH July 27, 2017 Update (Dec. 26, 2017): Petition for rehearing en banc denied; Judges Newman and Reyna dissented, concerned that under this decision “inequitable conduct in patent prosecution can be retrospectively imposed by ‘adverse … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. USPTO

Docket Nos. 2015-1928 (IPR2014-00183) NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD affirmed as to finding of obviousness and anticipation but vacated as to dismissal of contingent motion to amend claims since the that the PTAB “impermissibly … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., Alcon Labs., Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1499, -1500, -1558, -1559 MOORE, MAYER, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of no obviousness affirmed (efficacy limitations not in the prior art of record); finding of literal infringement of certain claims reversed (ANDA does … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Inherency, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David A. Tropp / David A. Tropp v. Conair, et al.

Docket No. 2016-2386, -2387, -2714, -1025 REYNA, LINN, CHEN December 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for no direct infringement under § 271(a) vacated and remanded because, e.g., “[a] reasonable jury could conclude that [TS’s] activities do establish … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

HTC corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-1880 (IPR2014-01134) DYK, REYNA, TARANTO December 18, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction affirmed, as were resultant findings of no explicity or inherent anticipation, or obviousness. Summary: HTC appealed PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) that HTC failed … Continue reading

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

Genzyme Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories / Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2206, -2207 MOORE, PLAGER, CHEN December 18, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision of nonobviousness found not to be clearly erroneous due to a lack of reasonable expectation of success in arguments (e.g., based on non-analogous art that … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re: Erik Brunetti

Docket No. 2015-1109 DYK (C), MOORE, STOLL December 15, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel reversed PTAB’s affirmance of “the examining attorney’s refusal to register the mark FUCT” for apparel “because it comprises immoral or scandalous matter under 15 U.S.C. § … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1499 NEWMAN, LOURIE, CHEN December 14, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s dismissal of Amgen’s state law unfair competition and conversion claims was affirmed due to preemption by federal law (BCPIA). Summary: In its 2017 Sandoz v. Amgen decision relating … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment