Monthly Archives: May 2019

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

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)

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

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

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)

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”)

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

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