Author Archives: Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Docket No. 2016-1123 (IPR2014-00070) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY August 7, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision that Personal Audio’s ‘504 claims were anticipated and/or obvious affirmed. EFF found to have standing to defend PTAB decision since Personal Audio was appellant and the … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

AIA America, Inc. et al. v. Avid Raiopharmaceuticals / U. Penn.

Docket No. 2016-2647 NEWMAN, LOURIE, HUGHES August 10, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision was affirmed because “there is no right to a jury trial for attorney’s fees under § 285”. Summary: AIA appealed DC award of § 285 attorney’s fees … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2179 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN August 10, 2017 Brief summary: Amgens’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and petition for a writ of mandamus dismissed and denied, respectively, since DC denial of Amgen’s motion to compel discovery is “reviewable from … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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

Enzo Biochem Inc et al. v. Applera Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1881 PROST, O’MALLEY, WALLACH August 2, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to Applera on remand following Applera’s appeal of a $48.6 million adverse judgment affirmed since, e.g., the DOE “cannot embrace a structure that is … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents | Leave a comment

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1996 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH August 1, 2017 Brief summary: Board affirmance of obviousness rejections vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred “in dismissing properties of the claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to unpredictability and … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

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