Monthly Archives: April 2018

01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. (CL) v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1869 NEWMAN, MAYER, STOLL April 26, 2018 Brief summary: DC order denying CL’s motion for a new trial regarding the alleged infringement of US 6,928,479 relating to “private communicaton portal[s]” by Citrix’s GoToMyPC product affirmed. Summary: CL appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2302, -2615 TARANTO, CLEVENGER, CHEN April 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC’s “unenforceability judgment based on unclean hands” with respect to Merck’s patents relating to Gilead’s Sovaldi® and Harvoni® Hepatitis C treatements affirmed. Summary: Merck appealed the DC’s “unenforceability … Continue reading

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

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1295, -1297 (IPR2015-00841, -00842) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE April 19, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s findings of anticipation and obviousness following IPR reversed based on FC panel’s revised claim construction. Summary: Wonderland (WL) appealed two IPR decisions finding the … Continue reading

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

Keith Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., AT&T Corp. (“Appellees”)

Docket No. 2017-1400, -1401 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH April 18, 2018 Brief summary: DC’s award under § 285 affirmed since “dismissal with prejudice…is tantamount to a judgment on the merits”. Summary: Raniere appealed DC award of attorney’s fees and costs under … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

ICOS Corporation v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1017, -1018 (IPR2015-00561, -00562) MOORE, LINN, CHEN April 18, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB findings of invalidity for obviousness of the claims of ICOS’ Orange Book-listed patents for tadalafil (Eli Lilly’s Cialis®) affirmed. Summary: ICOS appealed PTAB IPR … Continue reading

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

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S

Docket No. 2017-1681 (IPR2015-01403) MOORE, LINN, CHEN April 17, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) finding anticipation and obviousness, and rejected Apator’s proffered evidence of prior conception since it was based only on the inventor’s own statements … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sumimoto Dainippon Pharma Co./Sunovion Pharm. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals et al.

Docket No. 2017-1798-800 MOORE, MAYER, STOLL April 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC determination that Sumimoto’s US 5,532,372 relating to Sunovion’s schizophrenia and bipolar depression drug LATUDA® (lurasidone) is not limited to racemic mixture affirmed. Summary: Emcure appealed DC determination that … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2707, -2708 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES April 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement of later-issued OB patent by amended ANDA, and that method of treatment claims are patentable under § 101 affirmed. Summary: WW appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Patentability, Written description | Leave a comment

In Re: Merck & CIE

Docket No. 2017-1960 O’MALLEY, MAYER, TARANTO April 11, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming examiner’s obviousness rejection affirmed because “Merck’s view is not the only reasonable view” of the prior art. Summary: Merck & Cie appealed PTAB’s decision affirming … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corporation, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2139 PROST, HUGHES, STOLL April 9, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of Funai’s motion to dismiss suit against it after finding that Maxon’s patents “claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101” affirmed (the “claims merely … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment