Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Docket No. 2017-1671 (several others) (IPR2015-00545-48, -00551, -00554, -01903) NEWMAN, LOURIE, REYNA July 13, 2018 Brief summary: Board obviousness decision in several final written decisions affirmed (“no reason to exercise any discretion to remand the non-instituted claims or grounds sua … Continue reading

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

Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry

Docket No. 2017-1169, -1170 (IPR2015-00780, -00783) TARANTO, PLAGER, CHEN June 11, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that “[t]he record does not show that the Board fully considered all of the relevant factors” in determining whether slides presented at a … Continue reading

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

Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Docket No. 2016-1671 (IPR2014-00963) PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH (D) May 29, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding IV’s claims relating to “frequency hopping” in wireless systems not to be invalid for anticipation or obviousness reversed and remanded. Summary: Ericsson appealed … Continue reading

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

UCB, Inc. et al. v Accord Healthcare et al.

Docket No. 2017-1909, -1910 REYNA, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 21, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision of no invalidity of UCB’s OB claims covering the anti-epileptic Vimpat® affirmed. Summary: Accord appealed DC decision that UCB’s RE38,551 covering the anti-epileptic functionalized amino acid … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. (USPTO, Intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1944-46 (IPR2013-00601) DYK, BRYSON, REYNA (D) April 20, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB rejection of Wi-Fi’s time-bar argument (§ 315(b)) that no DC “defendant was either a privy of Broadcom or a real party in interest”, and that the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1295, -1297 (IPR2015-00841, -00842) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE April 19, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s findings of anticipation and obviousness following IPR reversed based on FC panel’s revised claim construction. Summary: Wonderland (WL) appealed two IPR decisions finding the … Continue reading

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

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S

Docket No. 2017-1681 (IPR2015-01403) MOORE, LINN, CHEN April 17, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) finding anticipation and obviousness, and rejected Apator’s proffered evidence of prior conception since it was based only on the inventor’s own statements … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment