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

IPR finding insufficient disclosure of range percentage and anticipation affirmed

Invidior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., et al. Docket No. 2020-2073, -2142 (IPR2019-00329) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2073.OPINION.11-24-2021_1870396.pdf) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 24, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision affirmed due to lack of written description of claimed range and affirmed as to … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Written description | Leave a comment

DC finding that Horizon’s OB patents are obvious and/or not infringed affirmed

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Docket No. 2021-1480 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1480.OPINION.11-16-2021_1865455.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC refusal to change inventorship, finding of obviousness and no infringement of Horizon’s patents affirmed. Summary:  Horizon appealed DC finding … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC Hatch-Waxman decision finding improper venue and failure to state a claim affirmed

Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. Docket No. 2021-1154 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1154.OPINION.11-5-2021_1860406.pdf) PROST, CHEN, HUGHES November 5, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding of improper venue and failure to state a claim affirmed. Summary:  Celgene sued Mylan for infringement under the … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Venue | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”

University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC Docket No. 2020-2243 (IPR2019-00431) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2243.OPINION.11-4-2021_1859852.pdf) REYNA, CLEVENGER, STOLL November 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”. Summary:  University of Strathclyde (US) appealed Board final … Continue reading

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

DC section 101 ineligibility decision reversed as “the particular arrangement of steps in claim 1 provides a technical improvement” over conventional methods

CosmoKey Solutions Gmbh & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC et al. Docket No. 2020-2043 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2043.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843694.pdf) O’MALLEY, REYNA, STOLL October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding CosmoKey’s claims unpatentable under section 101 reversed (e.g., “the particular arrangement of steps … Continue reading

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

Board design patent anticipation decision reversed as prior art is to an art tool while design patent claim is “limited to lip implants”

In Re:  Surigisil, LLP et al. Docket No. 2020-1940 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1940.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843781.pdf) MOORE, NEWMAN, O’MALLEY October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding design patent claim anticipated by art tool prior art reversed (e.g., “the claim is limited to lip implants and … Continue reading

Posted in Design Patents, Medical Devices | Leave a comment

FC panel finds PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d)

In Re:  Vivint, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1992 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1992.OPINION.9-29-2021_1841724.pdf) MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY September 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d). Summary:  Vivint appealed USPTO denial of its request to dismiss Alarm.com’s request … Continue reading

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

DC’s finding of no willfulness reversed, enhanced damages and attorney fees affirmed

SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1685, -1704 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1685.OPINION.9-28-2021_1841166.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES September 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding of no willfulness reversed; grant of enhanced damages and attorney’s fee affirmed. Summary:  SRI appealed DC denial of … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

ITC claim construction and finding of infringement under the DOE affirmed

Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH v. Int. Trade Comm. (Glycosyn LLC as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2220 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-2220.OPINION.9-17-2021_1836421.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES September 17, 2021 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  ITC claim construction and finding of infringement under the DOE affirmed. Summary:  Jennewein appealed ITC’s claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

DC denial of new infringement trial affirmed but jury damages award vacated due to improper apportionment

Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp. Docket No. 2020-1793, -1794 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1793.OPINION.9-14-2021_1833974.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES September 14, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC denial of CalAmp’s JMOL for a new trial on infringement affirmed but jury damages award vacated and remanded for improper … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Royalties | Leave a comment