Monthly Archives: September 2019

DC correctly denied preliminary injunction since Propel showed evidence of anticipation by parent patent application

OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Injunction, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Covered Business Method (CBM) eligibility decision remanded under revised claim construction

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB determination of CBM eligibility reversed since, e.g., “SIPCO’s claims combine certain communication elements in a particular way to address a specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Covered Business Method Reviews, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC decision affirmed as safety and efficacy “wherein” clauses are limiting

Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., Alcon Laboratories Docket No. 2018-2207 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH August 29, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of a preliminary injunction to Allergan affirmed since the “wherein” clauses relating to safety and efficacy were found … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Uncategorized, Wherein | Leave a comment

IPR nonobviousness decision affirmed in part because secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point of novelty”

Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC Docket No. 2018-1596 (IPR2016-01435) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL September 12, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR holding of nonobviousness affirmed (no motivation to combine, secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point … Continue reading

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

Incomplete response to Final Office Action results in reduced Patent Term Adjustment

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2018-1849 WALLACH, CHEN, HUGHES September 18, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision affirming USPTO’s PTA calculation penalizing IC for 21-day delay in filing proper response to FOA affirmed. Summary: Intra-Cellular (IC) appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), Patent Term Extension, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pattern illustrated in design patent limited to chairs due to prosecution history

Curver Luxemborg, SARL v. Home Expressions, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2214 CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL September 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding that Curver’s design patent claim limited the patent to chairs affirmed. Summary: Curver appealed DC grant of HE’s motion to … Continue reading

Posted in Design Patents, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“[P]ost-interference examination period” was RCE time “attributable to Mayo” that reduced time of patent term adjustment (PTA)

Mayo Foundation v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2018-2031 NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK September 16, 2019 Brief Summary: DC determination that “post-interference examination period” was “was RCE time ‘attributable to Mayo, and not the PTO’” and reduced Mayo’s PTA time. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), Patent Term Extension, Uncategorized | Leave a comment