Monthly Archives: March 2020

Rejected claim construction proposal during IPR was not prosecution history estoppel, FC affirms infringement under DOE; second infringement decision reversed

Galderma Labs., Nestle Skin Health S.A. et al. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC et al. Docket No. 2019-1021 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL March 25, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of infringement of certain claims affirmed as statements made in related IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FB improperly joined to its existing IPRs under 315(c); various obviousness conclusions affirmed and vacated

Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC Docket No. 2018-1400-3, -1537, -1540-41 (IPR2016-00=1156-59, IPR2017-00659, -00709 PROST, PLAGER, O’MALLEY March 18, 2020 Brief Summary: Board improperly joined FB as a party to its own existing IPRs under section 315(c); various obviousness … Continue reading

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

IPR decision of obviousness of method of treatment claim reversed for erroneous claim construction

Kaken Pharm. Co., Inc., Bausch Health Cos. Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2018-2232 (IPR2017-00190, -01429) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO March 13, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision reversed based on erroneous claim construction in method of treatment claim. Summary: Kaken appealed … Continue reading

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

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding that Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims are patent ineligible reversed. Summary: Illumina appealed DC decision finding certain claims … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chloroquine and COVID, a real possibility?

Interesting research: 1) An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (Todaro and Rigano) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTi-g18ftNZUMRAj2SwRPodtscFio7bJ7GdNgbJAGbdfF67WuRJB3ZsidgpidB2eocFHAVjIL-7deJ7/pub#ftnt6 2) Expert Consensus on Chloroquine Phosphate for the Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Zhonghua, et al.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32164085/?fbclid=IwAR0ZNk2JXMGYCDLKHwB5kykkLUviE03JqNRWGH8P8lt1NRKVJLk6cOIfjv8 3) In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims eligible under 101 (DC reversed); DC obviousness findings affirmed

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2019-1172 DYK, MOORE, HUGHES March 16, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of ineligibility under 101 for method of treatment claims reversed; invalidity for double-patenting and obviousness affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board CBM decisions of patent ineligibility affirmed (no improved computer functionality)

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. et al. Docket No. 2018-2239 (CBM2017-00023), 2019-1000 (CBM2017-00032) PROST, DYK, MOORE March 6, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB CBM decisions of patent ineligibility under 101 affirmed (e.g., “computers are invoked merely as a tool”, … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Software | Leave a comment