Monthly Archives: April 2020

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

Posted on April 30, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Docket No. 2019-1513, -1514 (IPR2017=01357, -01358) REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision finding it did not show invalidity of Chugai’s protein purification claims dismissed for … Continue reading →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

Posted on April 28, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading →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

Posted on April 23, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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”

Posted on April 22, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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”

Posted on April 17, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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)

Posted on April 15, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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)

Posted on April 10, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Non-obviousness finding for Relistor® OB-listed formulation patent reversed due to structural and functional similarity to prior art compounds

Posted on April 9, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Valeant Pharm. Int., Salix Pharm., Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., et al., Actavis LLC Docket No. 2018-2097 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of non-obviousness of OB formulation patent reversed and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Public FDA hearing is a printed publication, Hulu IPR decision does not apply to examination

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ex parte Antonio J. Grillo-Lopez Appeal 2018-006082 (Appln. No. 13/524,837) Precedential (designated April 7, 2020) Brief Summary: Public FDA hearing held to be printed publication and “the framework set forth in the Hulu decision for IPR proceedings does not apply … Continue reading →

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

IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2019-1263, -1265, -1267, -1270 IPRs 2017-00731, -01121, -02063, -00737, -01122, -01960 LOURIE, MOORE, WALLACH March 26, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction (e.g., “effective amount”), obviousness conclusion and denial of amendment … Continue reading →

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