Monthly Archives: October 2020

Induced infringement decision reversed (“subjective bad faith”); eligibility decision affirmed (“improving a basic function of a computer”)

Posted on October 27, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., et al. Docket No. 2019-2192, -2258 PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC incorrectly excluded evidence of induced infringement (“subjective bad faith”) but correctly found patent eligibility (“directed to improving a basic function … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IPR anticipation findings reversed due to erroneous claim construction

Posted on October 19, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-2108-9, -2140 (IPR2018-00105-00106) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  Board anticipation finding of certain claims reversed based on FC panel’s revised claim construction (claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction | Leave a comment

IPR FWD invalidating Immunex’s “human antibody” claims invalidated (“nothing in the claim’s language restricts ‘human antibodies’ to those that are fully human”)

Posted on October 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1749, -1777 (IPR2017-01879, -01884) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 13, 2020 Brief Summary:  Immunex appealed two IPR final written decisions (FWDs) invalidating the challenged claims of US 8,679,487 … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Terminal Disclaimers | Leave a comment

Teva’s ANDA carve-out does not save it from induced infringement (“when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets the same product for intended direct infringing activity, the criteria of induced infringement are met”)

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

GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1976, -2023 PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE October 2, 2020 Brief Summary:  GSK appealed DC judgment of a matter of law (JMOL) finding no induced infringement of RE40,000 by Teva’s Coreg® … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC claim construction reversed; joined party in IPR can raise new obviousness arguments; no improper broadening during reissue

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al. Docket No. 2018-2338-39, -2395-96 PROST, NEWMAN, BRYSON September 24, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction affirmed and reversed (“ordinary meaning”); joinder rule did not prevent HP from raising new obviousness arguments that … Continue reading →

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

Grant of JMOL reversed as “an old method of administration of an old product made by a new process is not novel and cannot be patented”

Posted on October 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. et al. (Pfizer Inc., Bayer, Novartis) Docket No. 2019-1133 NEWMAN, LINN, HUGHES September 28, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC instructed to reinstate jury verdict of invalidity for anticipation of Biogen’s IFN-b method of treatment … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Product-by-Process, Uncategorized | Leave a comment