Monthly Archives: February 2021

FC panel reverses IPR finding of no obviousness and vacates decision as to dependent claims that the Board did not discuss separately

Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC Docket No. 2019-1927 (IPR2017-02125) ( NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA February 18, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as to independent claims and vacated the decision as to the dependent claims (e.g., … Continue reading

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

FC panel affirms DC decision that Torrent did not show obviousness of Takeda’s algoliptin claims

Takeda Pharm. Co. et al. v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1552, -1598 ( (Non-Precedential) DYK, MAYER, CHEN February 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC holding that Torrent did not show Takeda’s claims related to algoliptin obvious affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC claim construction and indefiniteness findings affirmed; ineligibility conclusions not reached by FC panel

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Funambol, Inc. Docket No. 2020-2196, -2199 ( PROST, REYNA, TARANTO February 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, invalidity for indefiniteness, and grant of SJ affirmed. Summary:  Synchronoss appealed DC claim constructions and grant … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC lack of enablement of Amgen’s anti-PCSK9 antibody claims affirmed

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al. Docket No. 2020-1074 ( PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES February 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC lack of enablement of Amgen’s anti-PCSK9 antibody claims affirmed. Summary:  Amgen appealed DC grant of JMOL for lack of enablement of … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

Board correctly determined references on website were publicly accessible; improper change of grounds vacated and remanded

M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1160 (IPR2018-00696) ( MOORE, BRYSON, CHEN February 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board public accessibility finding affirmed; anticipation determination vacated and remanded for improper change in grounds from obviousness. Summary:  M&K … Continue reading

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

Board IPR FWD obviousness findings affirmed (e.g., no teaching away)

Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2302-5, -2452 (IPR2019-00291, -00318, -00322, -00385, -00797) ( LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA February 1, 2021 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decisions affirmed (e.g., no teaching away). Summary:  Columbia appealed two IPR final written decisions … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment