Monthly Archives: June 2019

DC findings of infringement and validity of one UCB rotigotine patent and invalidity of another as anticipated by use in a single patient in a clinical trial affirmed

UCB, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1397, -1453 TARANTO, SCHALL, CHEN June 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions finding that UCB’s ‘434 patent was infringed under DOE and not invalid and UCB’s ‘414 patent … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Time bar not triggered by change in real party in interest, Board claim construction/ invalidity determinations of Mayne’s claims affirmed

Mayne Pharma Int. v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1593 (IPR2016-01186) LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY June 21, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR time bar and claim construction/invalidity determinations affirmed. Summary: Mayne appealed the USPTO’s (Board’s) IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness finding vacated for erroneous motivaton to combine and reasonable expectation of success determinations

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. UUSI, LLC, DBA NARTRON Docket No. 2018-1310 (IPR2016-00908) NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK June 18, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded (e.g., “improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is … Continue reading

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

Privity and RPI relationships arising after IPR filing but before institution can trigger §315(b) time-bar

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (“Fairchild”) Docket Nos. 2018-1607 (IPR2016-00809) PROST, REYNA, STOLL June 13, 2019 Brief summary: IPR was time barred under §315(b) “because Fairchild was an RPI at the time the IPR was instituted, even … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit invalidates reissue patent invalid for lack of written description (WD)

Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC et al. (FC Docket No. 2018-1765; June 17, 2019) ~ Forum filed DJ action, DC granted SJ to Forum for lack of WD, FV appealed ~ U.S. 8,215,213 relates “to supporting assemblies” (“arbors”) … Continue reading

Posted in Reissue, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

State sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings, Federal Circuit decides

Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. et al. (Gilead Sci. Inc., intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-1560-65 (IPR2017-01068, -01186, -01197, -01200, -01213, -01214, -0129) DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES June 14, 2019 Brief summary: FC panel concluded “that state sovereign immunity … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding mesalamine method claims obvious affirmed, Salix’s appeal of DC non-infringment holding dismissed

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Generico, LLC et al., Salix Pharm. v. Mylan Pharm. Docket 2017-2312 (IPR2016-00297, -01386, -01409); 2017-2636, 2018-1320 LOURIE, LINN, WALLACH June 12, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s IPR obviousness determination affirmed and Salix’s appeal of DC … Continue reading

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