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

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ to SIMO reversed without remand due to improper construction of preamble

SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink et al. Docket No. 2019-2411 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2411.OPINION.1-5-2021_1711937.pdf) O’MALLEY, WALLACH, TARANTO January 5, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction and grant of SJ to SIMO reversed due to improper interpretation of preamble language. Summary:  uCloud … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble | Leave a comment

“Substantial risk of future infringement” provides standing for IPR appeal; non-obviousness conclusion vacated and remanded

General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation Docket No. 2019-1319 (IPR2017-00428) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1319.OPINION.12-28-2020_1707556.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES December 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  GE found to have standing due to a substantial risk of future infringement”; Board finding of no obviousness vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ of infringement to Lilly under DOE affirmed

Eli Lilly And Company v. Apotex, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1328 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1328.OPINION.12-21-2020_1705369.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, STOLL December 21, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary:  Apotex appealed DC grant of Lilly’s motion for summary judgment … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

FC panel affirmed DC claim construction based in part on Maia’s stipulation to infringement

Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Maia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1387 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1387.OPINION.12-17-2020_1703604.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO December 17, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC decision affirmed based on claim construction and Maia’s stipulation to infringement (e.g., technical construction errors “harmless”). Summary:  Maia appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

DC erred in denying ownership of foreign patents arising from non-disclosure agreement

SiOnyx LLC et al. v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al. Docket No. 2019-2359, 2020-1217 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2359.OPINION.12-7-2020_1697100.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH December 7, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erred in failing to transfer ownership of foreign patents arising from confidential information disclosed under an … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Damages, Licensing, Unjust enrichment | Leave a comment

Infringement by Hospira’s ANDA of Par’s epinephrin injection-related claims affirmed

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1273 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1273.OPINION.11-23-2020_1689851.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL November 23, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC finding that Hospira’s ANDA infringed Par’s claims affirmed (e.g., “[w]hat a generic asks for an receives approval to … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

Infringement by GSK’s inhalers and damages determination affirmed

Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al. Docket No. 2020-1054 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1054.OPINION.11-19-2020_1688174.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH November 19, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC finding that GSK’s inhaler composition infringe Vectura’s patent and the ~$90 million damages award affirmed. Summary:  GSK appealed jury finding … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Licensing | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination” of CBM review eligibility “non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. 324(e)”

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Update (11/17/20):  FC panel explained that SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination that SIPCO’s ‘842 patent qualifies for CBM review … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews, Patent Eligibility (101), Software | Leave a comment