Monthly Archives: March 2022

DC grant of SJ for indefiniteness and obviousness of Immunogen’s claims vacated and remanded

Immunogen, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1939 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1939.OPINION.3-25-2022_1926731.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 25, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ that Immunogen’s pending claims are indefinite and obvious vacated and remanded as factual findings not undisputed. Summary:  Immunogen … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Incorporation by Reference, Indefiniteness, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

DC reversed on WD of genus claims and patent co-ownership, affirmed on no willfulness and remanded for damages calculation

BASF Plant Science, L.P., Cargill, Inc. v. Commonwealth Scientific, et al. (“CSIRO”) Docket No. 2020-1415-16, 2020-1919-20 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1415.OPINION.3-15-2022_1921729.pdf) NEWMNA (D), TARANTO, CHEN March 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Following a dispute regarding a collaboration agreement, FC panel affirmed DC fining on … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Infringement, Inventorship, Licensing, Royalties, Venue, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative limitation need not be disclosed by prior art)

Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2331 (IPR2019-00207, -01095 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2331.OPINION.3-14-2022_1920940.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM March 14, 2022 Brief Summary:  Board IPR FWD finding Almirall’s method of treatment claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Negative Limitations, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding obviousness and denying entry of amended claims for lack of written description affirmed

Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation Docket No. 2021-1561 (IPR2019-01566) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1561.OPINION.3-10-2022_1919730.pdf) LOURIE, HUGHES, STOLL March 10, 2022 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR FWD finding parachute systems claims obvious and denial of entry of amended claims for lacking written description affirmed. … Continue reading

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

Biogen’s petition for rehearing en banc denied, panel decision affirmed DC decision that single mention of dose at lower end of range is insufficient written description

Biogen International GmbH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2020-1933 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1933.OPINION.11-30-2021_1871902.pdf) O’MALLEY (dissent), REYNA, HUGHES November 30, 2021 (update March 16, 2022) Second Update (October 3, 2022): Petition for certiorari to SCOTUS denied. Related final written decision in … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Written description | Leave a comment

DC dismissal of Alarm.com’s reexamination requests following IPR FWDs reversed as PTO did not decide “whether the requests presented a ‘substantial new question of patentability’”

Alarm.com Incorporated v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-2102 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2102.OPINION.2-24-2022_1913344.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM February 24, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision dismissing Alarm.com’s ex parte reexamination requests following IPR FWDs of the same claims reversed and remanded as PTO did not decide “whether … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC denial of preliminary injunction reversed as Sarepta’s IPR filings violated forum selection clause

Nippon Sinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2369 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2369.OPINION.2-8-2022_1904898.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL February 8, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC denial of preliminary injunction against Sarepta’s IPR filings reversed. Summary:  Nippon appealed from DC DE decision denying its motion … Continue reading

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

FC panel affirms Board dismissal of third IPR following patentability finding in other simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same claims under section 315(e)(1)

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2021-1481 (IPR2-18-01248) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1481.OPINION.2-11-2022_1907139.pdf) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL February 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Intuitive’s appeal of pending IPR in view of patentability findings in two simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same … Continue reading

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

DC grant of no invalidity of design patent reversed due to pre-critical date offer for sale

Larry K. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Martech Medical Products, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1649 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1649.OPINION.2-10-2022_1906548.pdf) DYK, REYNA, STOLL February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding no invalidity of design patent for invalidity due to pre-critical date offer for sale … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment