Monthly Archives: November 2019

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

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

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 v. Wyeth LLC Docket Nos. 2018-2133, -2134 (IPR2017-00378, -00380) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL November 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions regarding Wyeth’s vaccine claims vacated and remanded as “too cryptic to survive judicial review”.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

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

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

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

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

Posted on November 20, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket Nos. 2019-1368, -1369 (IPR2017-01526, -01528) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN November 19, 2019 Nonprecedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision invalidating Sanofi’s Lantus®-related claims for obviousness affirmed.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

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

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

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

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”)

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

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

Board construction of “wherein” clause affirmed; remanded for review of non-instituted grounds

Posted on November 6, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP Docket Nos. 2018-1812 (IPR2016-01502) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA October 29, 2019 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction of the “wherein” clause affirmed; decision remanded for consideration of non-instituted grounds. Summary: Alere appealed Board IPR final … Continue reading →

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

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Posted on November 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant

Posted on November 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2152 (PGR2017-00012) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for error in disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant. Summary: Liqwd appealed Board post-grant review (PGR) decision … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Post-grant review, Uncategorized | Leave a comment