Monthly Archives: February 2020

Horizon’s petition for en banc rehearing regarding indefiniteness denied (four judges dissented regarding “consisting essentially of”))

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 (update Feb. 25, 2020) Update (2/25/20): Petition for en banc hearing denied. Judges Lourie, Newman, O’Malley and Stoll … Continue reading

Posted in comprising, consisting of, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

ISPs handling servers are not Google’s agents, venue therefore improper

In Re: Google LLC Docket No. 2019-126 DYK, WALLACH, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: ED TX not the proper venue since Google “had no employee or agent regularly conducting its business” in that district (ISPs handling servers are not … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Venue | Leave a comment

DJ grant of SJ of non-infringement vacated due to pre-existing settlement agreement

Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC et al. v. Casper Sleep Inc. Docket No. 2019-1098, -1159 DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ vacated and remanded due to pre-existing settlement agreement. Summary: Serta appealed DC grant of … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Licensing | Leave a comment

Board erroneously excluded Apple’s reply arguments as new, not presented in IPR petition

Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation Docket No. 2018-2382, -2383 (IPR2017-00626, -00627) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 7, 2020 Brief Summary: Board erroneously excluded Apple’s IPR reply arguments as new as compared to IPR petition (‘626 remanded), and no anticipation or … Continue reading

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

DC dismissal affirmed as grandchild patent impliedly licensed in settlement agreement

Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1264 LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN February 6, 2020 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of Cheetah’s claims against AT&T affirmed since grandchild patent was impliedly included in prior license to grandparent parent. … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biogen’s Tecfidera-related ‘514 patent not obvious in IPR final written decision due to unexpected results of claimed dosage amount

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc. IPR2018-01403 (PTAB Final Written Decision) February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: Biogen’s Tecfidera-related US 8,399,514 B2 (“method of treating…multiple sclerosis” not obvious due in part to unexpected results (IPR final written decision). Summary: Mylan … Continue reading

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

“Lay witness” not qualified as an expert cannot testify as to conclusion of obviousness

HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Scott D. Fleischman Docket No. 2019-1649 NEWMAN, MOORE, CHEN February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: DC’s limiting jury instructions regarding obviousness because “lay witness” was not qualified as an expert. Summary: HVO appealed DC denial … Continue reading

Posted in Expert Testimony, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Means-plus-function, Uncategorized | Leave a comment