Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Board IPR decisions finding conception and reduction to practice before critical date affirmed

Posted on June 1, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L Docket No. 2021-2356, -2358, -2361, -2363, -22365 (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00135, -00137) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2356.OPINION.5-24-2023_2131839.pdf) LOURIE, LYNN, DYK (D) May 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions finding patented invention was conceived and … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

DC finding of UCB’s OB ‘589 patent invalid for anticipation and obviousness affirmed

Posted on April 18, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

UCB, Inc. et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. / Mylan Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1924, -2336 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1924.OPINION.4-12-2023_2109643.pdf) MOORE, CHEN, STOLL April 12, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding UCB’s ‘589 patent invalid for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary:  UCB … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Ranges | Leave a comment

Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed

Posted on April 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arbutus Biopharma Corp., et al. v. Modenatx, Inc. FKA Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1183 (IPR2018-00680) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1183.OPINION.4-11-2023_2108936.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, CHEN April 11, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed. Summary:  Arbutus … Continue reading →

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

Board finding of no written description of genus claims in priority applications and anticipation affirmed

Posted on March 8, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2168 (IPR 2017-01712) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2168.OPINION.3-6-2023_2090143.pdf) LOURIE, DYK, STOLL March 6, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR FWD finding UM’s genus claims lack a sufficient written description in priority applications … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Markush, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

DC invalidation of Minerva’s claims for public use at scientific meeting affirmed

Posted on February 17, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Minvera Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC Docket No. 2021-2246 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2246.OPINION.2-15-2023_2081255.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL February 15, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding of Minverva’s claims invalid for public use at a scientific meeting affirmed. Summary:  Minerva appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC claim construction based on description of invention affirmed; anticipation reversed; trade dress invalidity affirmed

Posted on February 7, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mosaic Brands, Inc., et al. v. Ridge Wallet LLC Docket No. 2022-1001-2 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1001.OPINION.12-20-2022_2050643.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, STARK December 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed based on description of invention “as a whole” in specification.  Anticipation finding based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Trade Dress, Written description | Leave a comment

Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LKQ Corporation, et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC Docket No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1253.OPINION.1-20-2023_2066551.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STARK January 20, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary:  LKQ appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Posted on October 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. Docket No. 2021-2121 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2121.OPINION.9-29-2022_2010851.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading →

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