Monthly Archives: October 2019

HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description

Posted on October 31, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1691 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL to Gilead finding HCV treatment patent invalid for enabled affirmed; FC panel also finds lack of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board decision finding Google did not show anticipation or obviousness affirmed

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

Google LLC v. Kininklijke Philips, N.V. Docket Nos. 2018-2213 (IPR2017-00437) Moore, Bryson, Chen October 23, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision that Google did not show the challenged claims to be anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary: Google appealed Board … Continue reading →

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

PTAB denies institution of IPR against PureCircle’s steviol process claims

Posted on October 25, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sweegen, Inv. v. PureCircle USA Inc., et al. IPR2019-01017 (US 9,243,273B2) October 24, 2019 Decision not to institute IPR Brief Summary: Petition for IPR denied as PTAB determined Sweegen did not present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness or … Continue reading →

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

Board decision that reissue claims improperly recapture surrendered subject matter affirmed

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

In Re: General Electric Company (“GE”) Docket No. 2019-1112, -1113, -1115 MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 18, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that reissue claims improperly attempted to recapture surrendered subject matter affirmed (e.g., the attachment limitation was added during … Continue reading →

Posted in Reissue, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC motion to dismiss remanded due to ambiguity regarding sublicense survival after bankruptcy

Posted on October 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. Docket No. 2018-2400 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 17, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of motion to dismiss reversed and remanded for reconsideration of evidence relating to survival of a sublicense after bankruptcy. Summary: Fraunhofer … Continue reading →

Posted in Bankruptcy, Licensing, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB anticipation/obviousness decision reversed since prior art did not disclose the claimed device “arranged as claimed”

Posted on October 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re: Stepen Brian Gates, Jeremy Black Docket No. 2018-2331 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL October 16, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB appeal decision affirming the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections reversed and remanded since the prior art did not disclose the … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB obviousness decision vacated as being improperly based on inherency

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

Knauf Insulation, Inc. et al. v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency. Summary: Knauf appealed PTAB’s inter partes … Continue reading →

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

Horizon’s OB ‘913 claim 12 survives obviousness challenge (Pennsaid® for osteoarthritis)

Posted on October 11, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grant of SJ of non-infringement reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”

Posted on October 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-2363 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 7, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Grant of SJ reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”. Summary: NeuroGrafix … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

Posted on October 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment