Monthly Archives: August 2019

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

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”)

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 Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading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

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

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)

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and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading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

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

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