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

GE’s “purported competitive injuries” found not to provide standing to appeal IPR

General Electric Company (GE) v. United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Docket No. 2017-2497 (IPR2016-00531) REYNA, TARANTO, HUGHES July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: GE appealed Board IPR finding claims 7-11 of UTC’s US 8,511,605 relating to gear fan gas turbine engines not … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. (DRL), Actavis/Watson, Teva, Par, Intelgenx, Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC Docket Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177 Newman, Mayer (D), Lourie July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings that Invidior … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board decision finding chromosomal abnormality testing claims lack written description affirmed

Stephen Quake, et al. v. Yuk-Ming Dennis Lo, et al. Docket Nos. 2018-1779, -1780, -1782 Reyna, Chen, Hughes July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board finding of no WD of chromosomal abnormality testing claims affirmed. Summary: Quake appealed Board decision finding … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Board written description decision vacated as conflicting with Ariad (predictability relevant to WD analysis)

In re: Global IP Holdings, LLC Docket Nos. 2018-1426 Moore, Reyna, Stoll July 5, 2019 Brief Summary: Board decision affirming rejection of broadening reissue claims for lacking written description vacated and remanded (e.g., Board’s statement “that the ‘233 patent’s specification … Continue reading

Posted in Reissue, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms DC’s grant of SJ, finding Enzo’s claims invalid for lack of enablement

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. (Becton Dickinson (BD), GeneOhm, Aboott) Docket Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546 (public opinion: July 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ for invalidity of Enzo’s claims for lack … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit denies Athena’s petition for rehearing of finding that its claims relating to a correlation between antibodies to a protein (“MuSK”) and neurological disorders are invalid under § 101.

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC Docket No. 2017-2508 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL February 6, 2019 (Petition for rehearing denied July 3, 2019) Update (July 3, 2019): Athena’s petition for rehearing regarding the invalidation under § … Continue reading

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