Monthly Archives: January 2020

Board IPR obviousness conclusion affirmed (cannot “ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge”)

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp. et al. Docket No. 2019-1177 (IPR2017-00447) MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 30, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness determination regarding Phillips’s claims affirmed (e.g., § 311(b) limitation on prior art does not mean … Continue reading

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

Galderma’s ivermectin claims not inherently anticipated since “claimed efficacy limitations” not disclosed by single prior art reference

Galderma Labs., L.P. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2396, -1213 MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of inherent anticipation reversed as it relied on a second reference to provide limitations missing from … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, Inherency | Leave a comment

Board denial of IPR dismissal request affirmed due to failure to produce evidence that Amazon should have been named a real party in interest on IPR petition

Global Equity Management (GEMSA) v. Ebay Inc.,, Docket No. 2019-1304, -1304 (IPR Nos. 2016-01828, -01829) WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL January 14, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision not to dismiss affirmed since “GEMSA did not meet its burden to … Continue reading

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

DC obviousness and infringement decisions regarding coffee filter claims affirmed

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Ent., Inc. et al. (“ARM”) Docket No. 2018-2215, -2254 DYK, REYNA, HUGHES January 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions that ARM’s claims are invalid for obviousness and not infringed, and that ARM willfully … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ affirmed since covenant not to sue and exclusive license directed to different subject matter and not covered by merger clause

Molon Motor and Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp. Docket No. 2019-1071 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES January 10, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant to SJ barring Molon since there was no merger of two agreements affirmed. Summary: Molon appealed DC grant … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Genentech’s antibody purification claims correctly found anticipated or obviousness in IPR, Fed. Cir. decides

Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (United States, Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-1933 (IPR2016-01837) PROST, NEWMAN, CHEN January 10, 2020 Brief Summary: Board’s IPR anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed. Summary: Genentech appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR final written decision (FWD) finding certain claims … Continue reading

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

“[R]esult that was inherent in the prior art” cannot overcome obviousness based on inherency

Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC Docket Nos. 2019-1329, -1367 NEWMAN, LOURIE, TARANTO January 9, 2020 Brief Summary: DC obviousness judgment of affirmed as “wherein” clause only describes “a result that was inherent in the prior art”. Summary: Hospira … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment