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

USPTO decision finding Sony’s CD recording claims obvious reversed by Federal Circuit due to improper means-plus-function determination (“computer-implemented” limitation requires algorithm)

Sony Corporation v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1172 (IPR2016-00834) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 22, 2019 Brief summary: IPR FWD obviousness finding reversed and remanded as disputed means-plus-function limitation is computer-implemented and requires an algorithm and Board … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”)

Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc. Docket No. 2017-2423 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES May 21, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”) reversed. Summary: Quest appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC and finds Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 Vimovo® Orange Book patents invalid for lack of written description

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Medicines LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. et al. Docket No. 2017-2473, -2481, -2484, -2486, -2489, -2491-93 PROST, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC reversed as FC panel found found Nuvo/Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 claims to … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Written description | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness

BTG Int. Ltd. and Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. Docket Nos. 2019-1147, -1148. -1323, -1324, -1325 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN May 14, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 … Continue reading

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

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors)

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa … Continue reading

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int. Ltd.

Docket No. 2018-1434 STOLL, PLAGER, CLEVENGER May 13, 2019 Brief summary: DC’s “ultimate determination that the challenged claims would not have been obvious” due to no reasonable expectation of success affirmed. Summary: WW (which filed ANDA 207486 for generic Afinitor®) … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2018-1551 and -1552 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA May 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC claim construction findings and grant of SJ of non-infringement to Sandoz regarding its Neupogen® and Neulasta® biosimilars affirmed. Summary: Amgen appealed two DC decisions finding Sandoz’s … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment