Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

IPR anticipation findings reversed due to erroneous claim construction

St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-2108-9, -2140 (IPR2018-00105-00106) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  Board anticipation finding of certain claims reversed based on FC panel’s revised claim construction (claims … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Grant of JMOL reversed as “an old method of administration of an old product made by a new process is not novel and cannot be patented”

Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. et al. (Pfizer Inc., Bayer, Novartis) Docket No. 2019-1133 NEWMAN, LINN, HUGHES September 28, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC instructed to reinstate jury verdict of invalidity for anticipation of Biogen’s IFN-b method of treatment … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Product-by-Process, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Injunction, damages, infringement and invalidity decisions regarding Illumina’s fetal testing patents affirmed

Verinata Health, Inc., Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Mol. Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Enablement, Infringement, Software | Leave a comment

Prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar holdings reversed (e.g., must be accessible to the public)

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Company, et al. Docket No. 2019-1243 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions finding prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar reversed and remanded. Summary: BASF appealed DC decision granted … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

Acoustic’s IPR time-bar arguments waived; anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed

Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1061 (IPR2017-1061) (see also FC Docket Nos. 2019-1059, -1060) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: Appeal based on time-bar arguments not presented to the Board were waived; anticipation … Continue reading

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

Board erroneously excluded Apple’s reply arguments as new, not presented in IPR petition

Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation Docket No. 2018-2382, -2383 (IPR2017-00626, -00627) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 7, 2020 Brief Summary: Board erroneously excluded Apple’s IPR reply arguments as new as compared to IPR petition (‘626 remanded), and no anticipation or … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness conclusion affirmed (cannot “ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge”)

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp. et al. Docket No. 2019-1177 (IPR2017-00447) MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 30, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness determination regarding Phillips’s claims affirmed (e.g., § 311(b) limitation on prior art does not mean … Continue reading

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

Galderma’s ivermectin claims not inherently anticipated since “claimed efficacy limitations” not disclosed by single prior art reference

Galderma Labs., L.P. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2396, -1213 MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of inherent anticipation reversed as it relied on a second reference to provide limitations missing from … Continue reading

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

Genentech’s antibody purification claims correctly found anticipated or obviousness in IPR, Fed. Cir. decides

Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (United States, Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-1933 (IPR2016-01837) PROST, NEWMAN, CHEN January 10, 2020 Brief Summary: Board’s IPR anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed. Summary: Genentech appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR final written decision (FWD) finding certain claims … Continue reading

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