Monthly Archives: April 2019

Neptune Genetics, LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company

Docket No. 2018-1257-8, -1288, -1290 (multiple IPRs) Moore, WALLACH, HUGHES April 26, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decisions finding Lilly’s claims relating to administration of vitamin B12 with pemetrexed were not shown to be obvious affirmed. Summary: Neptune Genetics (NG) … Continue reading

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

Andersen Corporation v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc.

Derivation Proceeding DER2017-00007 Petitioner Appln. No. 15/058,862; Respondent Pat. No. 9,428,953 B2 Final Written Decision (March 20, 2019) Brief summary: In this AIA derivation proceeding, the PTAB found that “Andersen has not demonstrated’ derivation “by a preponderance of the evidence”. … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Derivation of Invention | Leave a comment

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. (“TT”) v. IBG LLC et al. (US as intervenor)

Docket No. 2017-2257, -2621, 2018-1063 CBM Nos. 2015-00179, 2016-00051, 2016-00032 MOORE, MAYER, LINN April 18, 2019 Brief summary: Board finding that TT’s patents are CBM eligible (e.g., claims are not “for technological inventions”) and patent ineligible (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

U.S. Water Services, Inc., Roy Johnson v. Novozymes A/S et al.

Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Update (April 19, 2019 (non-precedential)): On remand of this decision (“US Water I”), the jury found no inherent anticipation and awarded damages of about $7.5 million. But the DC partially … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inherency | Leave a comment

ATI Technologies ULC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Docket No. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608 (IPR2015-00325, -00326, -00330) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH April 11, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB finding of invalidity due to ATI’s lack of diligence before filing its patent applications reversed (e.g., “[t]he PTAB identified no delays” or “gaps … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Diligence, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.

Docket No. 2018-1309 PROST, DYK, WALLACH April 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC decision finding infringement of ‘727 claim 1 affirmed; others reversed and remanded for state of mind analysis and to determine whether there were predicate acts of infringement; willfulness … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Incyte Corp. v. Concert Pharm. Inc.

IPR2017-01256 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,249,149 B2) PTAB Final Written Decision April 8, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision found Concert’s ‘149 patent claims to a deuterated ruxolitinib relating to its CTP-543 product in development invalid for obviousness. Summary: Concert’s ‘149 … Continue reading

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

TEK Global, et al. v. Sealant Systems Int., Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2507 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 29, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement, damages, and grant of PI affirmed; SSI granted a new trial on invalidity (on remand, DC improperly foreclosed SSI from presenting new obviousness theories). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Lost Profits, Means-plus-function, Royalties | Leave a comment

Grunenthal Gmbh et al. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., Hikma Pharm., Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2017-1153, -2048-50 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions of nonobviousness of Grunenthal’s polymorph claims, no induced or contributory infringement due to section viii carve-out, and specific utility of the claimed polymorph affirmed. Summary: Alkem … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Inherency, Obviousness, Utility | Leave a comment

Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1520, -1521 (IPR2016-01385, -01388) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO March 26, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR findings of AC’s ‘188 patent claims unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness vacated (e.g., inventor proved prior conception and diligent reduction to practice); finding ‘822 … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Diligence, Obviousness | Leave a comment