Monthly Archives: June 2018

Impax Laboratories Inc., AstraZeneca AB et al. V. Lannett Holdings Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2020 LOURIE, DYK, TARANTO June 28, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding that Impax’s (AZ’s) patents encompassing the migraine drug Zomig® were not invalid for obviousness affirmed (agreeing with the DC “that this case was close”). Summary: Lannex appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Elbrus International Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1855 (IPR2015-01524) REYNA, BRYSON, HUGHES June 27, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board IPR FWD finding Elbrus’s claims obvious affirmed (e.g., no teaching away as “nothing in Sukegawa discourages precharging”). Summary: Elbrus appealed Board IPR final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

In re: George Mizhen Wang

Docket No. 2017-1827 REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL June 20, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed as Mr. Wang’s claims “contain ‘additional features’ that embody an ‘inventive concept,’ so as to nevertheless make them patent-eligible” … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

Docket No. 16-1011 PROST, MOORE, STOLL June 22, 2018 Brief summary: SCOTUS reversed the FC, holding that WG’s “award for [extraterritorial] lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284”. Summary: WesternGeco (WG) sued Ion Geophysical (ION), alleging ION infringed … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Lost Profits, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2017-00008 (US 9,283,239 B2) Final Written Decision June 22, 2018 Brief summary: FWD decision following PGR finding AB’s method of treatment claims invalid for lack of written description (claimed dosage range not described). Summary: Grünenthal’s petition for post-grant review (PGR) … Continue reading

Posted in Post-grant review, Written description | 1 Comment

Royal Crown Company, Inc. et al. (Dr. Pepper Snapple Group) v. The Coca-Cola Company

Docket No. 2016-2375 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO June 20, 2018 Brief Summary: FC panel concluded “the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether TCCC’s ZERO marks are generic”, and vacated and remanded the dismissal of RCC’s oppositions. Summary: RCC … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1341, -1403 (IPR2015-01190) PROST, MOORE, STOLL June 19, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s finding of obviousness of claims 1-8, and non-obviousness of claims 9-10 affirmed. Board found to have erred because the pre-Aqua (FC 2017) FWD “improperly placed the … Continue reading

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

Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. v. iOnRoad, Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1984 LOURIE, CLEVENGER, REYNA June 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision following inter partes reexamination affirming the examiner’s rejection of Mobileye’s claim for estimating a time-of-contact between a moving vehicle and an obstacle” as obvious affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry

Docket No. 2017-1169, -1170 (IPR2015-00780, -00783) TARANTO, PLAGER, CHEN June 11, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that “[t]he record does not show that the Board fully considered all of the relevant factors” in determining whether slides presented at a … Continue reading

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

PTO Memorandum “Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals”

PTO Memorandum regarding Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al. Update: In the previously summarized Vanda decision (April 2018; FC Docket Nos. 2016-2707, -2708), the FC panel found claims to “[a] method for treating a patient….comprising the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment