Monthly Archives: August 2022

Board decision finding ineligibility under section 101 affirmed (abstract idea, generic computer)

Posted on August 25, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re:  Jeffrey A. Killian Docket No. 2021-2113 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2113.OPINION.8-23-2022_1994643.pdf) TARANTO, CLEVENGER, CHEN August 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed. Summary:  Mr. Killian appealed USPTO Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain … Continue reading →

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

DC decision of no infringement by Eagle’s ANDA specification and denial of DJ affirmed

Posted on August 19, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Eagle Pharmceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2342 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2342.OPINION.8-18-2022_1993064.pdf) MOORE, PROST, HUGHES August 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC finding of no infringement under 271(e)(2) affirmed based on Eagle’s ANDA specification to which Eagle is bound, … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Safe Harbor, FDA exemptions (271(e)(1)) | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading →

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

Assigned claim not broader than asserted claim, DC assignor estoppel decision affirmed

Posted on August 15, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hologic, Inc., et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2054, -2081 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2054.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990706.pdf) STOLL, CLEVENGER, WALLACH August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   On remand from SCOTUS, assignor estoppel decision affirmed as asserted claim not broader than assigned claim. Summary:  This … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, Written description | Leave a comment

Artificial intelligence cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act, Fed. Cir. holds

Posted on August 11, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Stephen Thaler v. Vidal/USPTO Docket No. 2021-2347 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2347.OPINION.8-5-2022_1988142.pdf) MOORE, TARANTO, STARK August 5, 2022 Brief Summary:   FC panel affirms ED VA and USPTO findings that only human beings and not computers (i.e., artificial intelligence) can be inventors under the … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction

Posted on August 4, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Limited, et al. Docket No. 2021-2069-70, 2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction. Summary:  TalexMedical appealed … Continue reading →

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