Monthly Archives: July 2019

Fed. Cir. affirms obviousness of Celgene’s claims and finds IPRs against pre-AIA patents not unconstitutional

Celgene Corp. v. Laura A. Peter (USPTO) Docket No. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (IPR2015-01096, -01102, -01103, -01092) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board obviousness determinations of Celgene’s thalidomide administration-related claims affirmed; arguments that IPRs are unconstitutional for … Continue reading

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

Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents valid design subject matter and not exhausted by sale of Ford F-150 truck

Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2018-1613 Hughes, Scholl, Stoll July 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision that Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents are not “primarily functional” designs and not unenforceable under doctrines of … Continue reading

Posted in Design Patents, Exhaustion and Repair, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed, TQ Delta had “opportunity to be heard”

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC Docket No. 2018-1799 (IPR2016-01470) NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding TQ Delta’s communications systems claims obvious affirmed. Summary: TQ Delta appealed Board IPR Final Written Decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

GE’s “purported competitive injuries” found not to provide standing to appeal IPR

General Electric Company (GE) v. United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Docket No. 2017-2497 (IPR2016-00531) REYNA, TARANTO, HUGHES July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: GE appealed Board IPR finding claims 7-11 of UTC’s US 8,511,605 relating to gear fan gas turbine engines not … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. (DRL), Actavis/Watson, Teva, Par, Intelgenx, Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC Docket Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177 Newman, Mayer (D), Lourie July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings that Invidior … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment