Monthly Archives: May 2019

Recent Pharma-Related Federal Circuit Opinions regarding DC and USPTO IPR Obviousness Decisions

Posted on May 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BTG Int. Ltd. and Jannsen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. May 14, 2019 Obviousness affirmed PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., the … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Dana-Farber and Genetic Institute researchers named co-inventors on the “Honjo patents” encompassing methods for treating cancer using anti-PD1 antibodies including BMS’s Opdivo® (nivolumab)

Posted on May 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. Civil Action No. 15-13443-PBS U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts May 17, 2019 Brief summary: DC determines Dana-Farber and Genetics Institute researchers to be co-inventors on the Honjo patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment

USPTO IPR claim construction and obviousness determinations for network communications claims affirmed

Posted on May 28, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bradium Technologies LLC v. Andre Iancu (USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2017-257, -2580 (IPR2016-00448, -00449) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN May 13, 2019 Brief summary: Board claim construction and obviousness determinations affirmed (e.g., no “clear and unambiguous definition limiting the term to only … Continue reading →

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

Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion

Posted on May 24, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1777 (IPR2016-01733) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 23, 2019 Brief summary: Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion, and Board claim construction … Continue reading →

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

USPTO decision finding Sony’s CD recording claims obvious reversed by Federal Circuit due to improper means-plus-function determination (“computer-implemented” limitation requires algorithm)

Posted on May 23, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sony Corporation v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1172 (IPR2016-00834) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 22, 2019 Brief summary: IPR FWD obviousness finding reversed and remanded as disputed means-plus-function limitation is computer-implemented and requires an algorithm and Board … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”)

Posted on May 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc. Docket No. 2017-2423 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES May 21, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”) reversed. Summary: Quest appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC and finds Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 Vimovo® Orange Book patents invalid for lack of written description

Posted on May 20, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Medicines LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. et al. Docket No. 2017-2473, -2481, -2484, -2486, -2489, -2491-93 PROST, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC reversed as FC panel found found Nuvo/Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 claims to … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Written description | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness

Posted on May 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BTG Int. Ltd. and Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. Docket Nos. 2019-1147, -1148. -1323, -1324, -1325 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN May 14, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 … Continue reading →

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

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors)

Posted on May 16, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa … Continue reading →

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int. Ltd.

Posted on May 14, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1434 STOLL, PLAGER, CLEVENGER May 13, 2019 Brief summary: DC’s “ultimate determination that the challenged claims would not have been obvious” due to no reasonable expectation of success affirmed. Summary: WW (which filed ANDA 207486 for generic Afinitor®) … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment