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

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2262.OPINION.11-16-2022_2034079.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, STARK November 16, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed.  FC panel explains that “a disclaimer in … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Prosecution, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

SCOTUS denies Juno’s petition for certiorari regarding written description

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Sloan Kettering v. Kite Pharma, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1758 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1758.OPINION.8-26-2021_1825257.pdf) MOORE, PROST, O’MALLEY August 26, 2021 (updated November 9, 2022) Update (Nov. 9, 2022):  SCOTUS denied Juno’s petition for certiorari (21-1566).  As summarized below, the FC reversed … Continue reading

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

SCOTUS grants Amgen’s request for certiorari of lack of enablement of its anti-PCSK9 antibody claims; petition for FC en banc hearing previously denied (June 21, 2021)

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al. SCOTUS Docket No. 21-757; FC Docket No. 2020-1074 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1074.OPINION.2-11-2021_1731739.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES November 7, 2022 Update (original FC Panel decision on February 11, 2021) Third Update (November 7, 2022):  SCOTUS granted certiorari regarding the … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

DC claim construction based on definition incorporated-by-reference reversed

Finjan LLC v. ESET, LLC, ESET SPOL. S.R.O. Docket No. 2021-2093 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2093.OPINION.11-1-2022_2027205.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO November 1, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ of invalidity for indefiniteness based on claim construction relating to incorporation-by-reference reversed. Summary:  Finjan appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Incorporation by Reference, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility findings for computer-related claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in part as some showed improvement of “a problem unique to the Internet”

Shalon Weisner and Shmuel Nemanov v. Google LLC Docket No. 2021-2228 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2228.OPINION.10-13-2022_2017814.pdf) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions on patent ineligibility claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part as two of the patents arguably “recite a specific … Continue reading

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

IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. Docket No. 2021-2121 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2121.OPINION.9-29-2022_2010851.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC and USPTO decisions not to grant patent term adjustments to SawStop’s patents affirmed (type C delay extensions)

SawStop Holding, LLC vs. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1537, -2105 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1537.OPINION.9-14-2022_2003622.pdf) NEWMAN, LINN, CHEN September 14, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC and USPTO decision not to grant patent term adjustments to SawStop’s patents affirmed (type C delay extensions). Summary:  SawStop appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim, Claim Construction, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) | Leave a comment