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

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.

Docket Nos. 2015-1499 NEWMAN, LOURIE, CHEN December 14, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s dismissal of Amgen’s state law unfair competition and conversion claims was affirmed due to preemption by federal law (BCPIA). Summary: In its 2017 Sandoz v. Amgen decision relating … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2550, -2553 LOURIE (C), REYNA, TARANTO December 11, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of indefiniteness of claims requiring a comparison of immediate and extended release formulations affirmed. Summary: Forest appealed DC finding that all of the asserted … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2442 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL December 8, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of attorney’s fees under § 285 for post-Alice decision conduct affirmed (“[i]t was IH’s responsibility to reassess its case in view of new controlling law”). Summary: IH … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Arctic Cat Inv. V. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1475 MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL December 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of BRP’s JMOL that the asserted claims would have been obvious and that the royalty, willfulness and trebling of damages were improper affirmed. Patent marking issue vacated … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

CRFD Res. V. USPTO (IPR2015-00055 (“Iron Dome FWD”)); CRFD Res. v. DISH et al. (IPR2015-00627 (“DISH FWD”)); Hulu/Spotify v. CRFD Res. (IPR2015-00259 (“HULU FWD”))

Docket Nos. 2016-2198, 2016-2298, 2016-2437 DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 5, 2017 Brief summary: Findings of no invalidity in two IPRs (Iron Dome and DISH) affirmed, but Hulu FWD finding of no obviousness reversed because the PTAB “failed to perform a … Continue reading

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

Microsoft Corporation and IBM v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2515, -2517-19, -2642, -2644-2646 (IPR2015-00483-00486, -01729, 01732, -01734) DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 1, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s claim construction affirmed but decisions of no anticipation and obviousness vacated and remanded because it did not provide adequate explanations. … Continue reading

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

AIP Acquisition LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2371 (IPR2015-00307) MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL November 30, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board claim construction and conclusion of invalidity for obviousness following IPR affirmed. Summary: AIP appealed PTAB decision invalidating the claims of expired US 7,269,247 relating to the … Continue reading

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