Monthly Archives: November 2019

IPR decisions of no obviousness of Wyeth’s vaccine claims vacated and remanded as “too cryptic to survive judicial review”

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC Docket Nos. 2018-2133, -2134 (IPR2017-00378, -00380) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL November 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions regarding Wyeth’s vaccine claims vacated and remanded as “too cryptic to survive judicial review”. … Continue reading

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

Infringement of analyte measurement device claims under DOE barred by prosecution history estoppel

Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. et al. v. LifeScan, Inc. (Johnson and Johnson) Docket Nos. 2019-1163 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL November 22, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of no infringement under DOE affirmed due to prosecution history estoppel. Summary: Pharma … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding no 315(b) time bar (no proper service) and obviousness affirmed by FC

Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Ltd., Activision Blizzard Inc. Docket Nos. 2019-1171 (IPR2017-01082) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL November 19, 2019 Brief Summary: IPR decision affirmed since GAT did not preserve proper service argument for appeal and GAT’s obviousness … Continue reading

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

Board decision invalidating Sanofi’s Lantus®-related claims for obviousness affirmed

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket Nos. 2019-1368, -1369 (IPR2017-01526, -01528) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN November 19, 2019 Nonprecedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision invalidating Sanofi’s Lantus®-related claims for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Sanofi appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR decision finding … Continue reading

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

TM decision reversed due to TTAB’s erroneous analysis of “substantially exclusive” use claim

Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.R.L. Docket Nos. 2019-1150 PROST, CLEVENGER, MOORE November 13, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Galperti TX priority argument correctly denied, but decision remanded as TTAB found to have erroneously analyzed whether Galperti IT’s “substantially exclusive” use claim … Continue reading

Posted in Trade Dress, Trademarks, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obviousness of utility patent affirmed; grant of SJ of non-infringement of design patent reversed and remanded

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1329, 1331, -1728 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 13, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding that Columbia’s utility patent is invalid for obviousness affirmed. DC grant of SJ that Columbia’s … Continue reading

Posted in Design Patents, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art analysis (“reasonably pertinent”)

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation Docket Nos. 2019-1803 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 8, 2019 Brief Summary: Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art determination (i.e., “whether the reference…is reasonably pertinent”). Summary: Airbus appealed Board reversal … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment