Monthly Archives: October 2018

BASF Corp. v. Enthone, Inc.

Posted on October 31, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1095 (IPR2016-00696) DYK, WALLACH, TARANTO October 26, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board IPR decision that BASF did not show obviousness vacated and remanded (e.g., “failure to provide ‘an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings’”). Summary: BASF appealed Board … Continue reading →

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

FWP IP APS v. Biogen MA, Inc.

Posted on October 29, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2109 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN October 24, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board interference decision of no WD of claimed MS treatment in FWP’s specification affirmed (e.g., “the inventors…had not yet firmly concluded”). Summary: FWP appealed Board interference decision that … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Merial, Inc. v. Intervet International B.V. (IV)

Posted on October 24, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2018-00919 (US Pat. No. 8,008,001 B2) Decision denying institution (October 12, 2018) Brief summary: Merial’s request for IPR denied because “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” were presented during prosecution of IV’s ‘001 patent. Summary: Merial … Continue reading →

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

In Re: Copaxone Consolidated Cases / Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Posted on October 23, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1575 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding Teva/Yeda’s patents relating to COPAXONE® invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva (Yeda) appealed DC decision (regarding five consolidated cases) invalidating US 8,232,250; 8,399,413; 8,969,302; and 9,155,776 … Continue reading →

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

Yeda Res. Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharm., Amneal Pharm.

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1594-56 (IPR2015-00643, -0064, -00830, -01976, -01980-81 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 12, 2018 Brief summary: Board IPR decisions finding Yeda’s patents relating to relating to COPAXONE® invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Yeda appealed PTAB final written decisions (FWDs) finding … Continue reading →

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

In Re: Copaxone Consolidated Cases / Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1575 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding Teva/Yeda’s patents relating to COPAXONE® invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva (Yeda) appealed DC decision (regarding five consolidated cases) invalidating US 8,232,250; 8,399,413; 8,969,302; and 9,155,776 … Continue reading →

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

Yeda Res. Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharm., Amneal Pharm.

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1594-56 (IPR2015-00643, -0064, -00830, -01976, -01980-81 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 12, 2018 Brief summary: Board IPR decisions finding Yeda’s patents relating to relating to COPAXONE® invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Yeda appealed PTAB final written decisions (FWDs) finding … Continue reading →

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

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) v. Google LLC

Posted on October 12, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1135 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 9, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding certain of DET’s claim ineligible under § 101 affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part (e.g., claims “not abstract, but rather directed to a specific improved method for navigating through complex three-dimensional … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Posted on October 11, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2017-01122 (Final Written Decision) October 3, 2018 Brief summary: Genentech’s claims 1-11 and 14-17 of US 7,892,549 B2 related to Herceptin® (the humanized anti-ErbB2 antibody trastuzumab) shown obvious by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: Celltrion challenged claims 1-11 and … Continue reading →

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

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid

Posted on October 10, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1690 O’MALLEY, REYNA, HUGHES October 9, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ of invalidity of Roche’s diagnostic method and primer claims under § 101 affirmed (“[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment