Monthly Archives: August 2019

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

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

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims patent ineligible under 101 for being “focused on screening for a natural law” (“the invention does not improve treatment…by taking advantage of the body’s natural process”)

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

INO Therapeutics LLC, et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc., et al. Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC decision that wireless communication claims are patent eligible under section 101 reversed

Posted on August 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al. (“TTI”) Docket No. 2018-2103, -2228 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of no invalidity under section 101 reversed; anticipation finding affirmed. Summary: TTI appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

APA violation and unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene); Board IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed

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

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1854 (IPR2016-00918) DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: Anthrex’s due process and constitutional challenges to IPR rejected; Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed. … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Posted on August 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Nalpropion’s naltrexone/bupropion claims found by FC panel not to lack written description (affirming DC) but invalid for obviousness (reversing DC)

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

Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1221 PROST, LOURIE, WALLACH August 15, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision of no invalidity for lack of WD affirmed, but decision of no obviousness reversed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC judgment … Continue reading →

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

DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities and finding genetic testing claims ineligible under 101 affirmed

Posted on August 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genetic Vet. Sciences, Inc. (“PPG”) v. Laboklin GmbH & Co., KG, The University of Berlin Docket No. 2018-2056 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign university and its foreign licensee affirmed; finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Jurisdiction, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lilly’s Orange Book ‘209 patent regarding administration of pemetrexed not literally infringed, but infringed under DOE

Posted on August 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Hospira, Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Docket No. 2018-2126, -2127, -2128 LOURIE, MOORE, TARANTO August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC literal infringement decision reversed, but infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary: Hospira and Dr. Reddy’s (DRL) appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC claim construction, written description, and finding of infringement by imported E. coli strains affirmed by Federal Circuit

Posted on August 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ajinomoto Co. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC) et al. Docket No. 2018-1590, -1629 (ITC No. 337-TA-1005) DYK (C/D), MOORE, TARANTO August 6, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction, written description, and finding that certain E. coli strains imported … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment