Monthly Archives: January 2019

Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH

Docket No. 2017-2596 (IPR2016-01665) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Board decision finding UCB’s ‘650 patent relating to Pfizer’s Toviaz product was not shown invalid for obviousness affirmed. UCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing since Amerigen’s … Continue reading

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

AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com et al.

Docket No. 2018-1433 (IPR2015-01802) MOORE, SCHALL, STOLL January 9, 2019 Brief summary: Board’s reconsideration after FWD found not to violate AC’s due process since Board was obligated to consider all grounds and AC had an opportunity to respond. Summary: AC … Continue reading

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

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Insys Development Co., Inc. v. GW Pharma Limited and Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd.

IPR2017-00503 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,066,920 B2) Final Written Decision January 3, 2019 Brief summary: Board found claims 1 and 2, but not dependent claims 3-13, of GW’s patent directed to “[a] method for treating partial seizure comprising administering” “a daily … Continue reading

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

In Re: Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

Docket No. 2017-2465 CHEN, MAYER, BRYSON December 28, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision affirming the rejection of certain claims relating to a method of playing a dice game under § 101 affirmed (“printed matter” (“the only arguably unconventional aspect”) “fall[s] … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2218-20, -2260-62 (IPR2016-00116, -00161, -00173) PROST, O’MALLEY, HUGHES December 20, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s construction (under BRI) of “communication device identification codes” reversed, vacated and remanded; other conclusions of non-obviousness affirmed. Summary: Vivint appealed Board decision invalidating … Continue reading

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