Monthly Archives: April 2020

Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2019-1513, -1514 (IPR2017=01357, -01358) REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision finding it did not show invalidity of Chugai’s protein purification claims dismissed for … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Injunction, damages, infringement and invalidity decisions regarding Illumina’s fetal testing patents affirmed

Verinata Health, Inc., Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Mol. Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Enablement, Infringement, Software | Leave a comment

Extension under § 156 does not include claimed metabolite not listed on Tecfidera® label

Biogen Int. GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC Docket No. 2020-1373 LOURIE, MOORE, CHEN April 21, 2020 Brief Summary: DC judgment that patent extended under § 156 does not included metabolite covered by claim but not listed in Tecfidera® label … Continue reading

Posted in Extension (156), Patent Term Extension | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision reversed and remanded as claim is “not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”

Cardionet, LLC et al. v. Infobionic, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1149 DYK, PLAGER, STOLL April 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC patent ineligibility decision (section 101) reversed and remanded (“not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”). Summary: … Continue reading

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

Claim construction reversed since DC excluded preferred embodiment and “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”

Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1595, -1648 WALLACH, MAYER, STOLL April 10, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: FC panel reverses DC claim construction (e.g., cannot exclude preferred embodiment, “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”). Summary: Rembrandt … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar holdings reversed (e.g., must be accessible to the public)

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Company, et al. Docket No. 2019-1243 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions finding prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar reversed and remanded. Summary: BASF appealed DC decision granted … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness findings vacated and remanded (Nautilus standard controls, only general-purpose computer or processor requires a specific algorithm)

Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. Docket No. 2018-2220, -2349 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 9, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ based on its indefiniteness finding vacated and remanded (e.g., the correct standard is the Nautilus “reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment