Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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

Mylan Insitutional LLC and Apicore US LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.

Docket No. 2017-1645 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA May 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of preliminary injunction and finding of infringement Apicore’s “process patents” under the DOE reversed since the function-way-result test not appropriate under this chemical case. Grant of PI … Continue reading

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

In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.

Docket No. 2016-1830 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 10, 2017 Brief Summary: No error found with the Board’s authority to reexamine even though LG withdrew since LG submitted the request and “was still involved in the proceedings at the time the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1284, -1787 DYK, MAYER, O’MALLEY May 1, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel reversed DC and found the asserted claims invalid under the § 102(b) on-sale bar. The FC panel concluded that the AIA did not change the meaning … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1106 (IPR2013-00535) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 25, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: FC panel modified the construction of “precursor” in claim 9 and therefore reversed and vacated/remanded the Board’s anticipation and obviousness conclusions, respectively. Obviousness conclusion regarding claim 19 … Continue reading

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

In re: Steven C. Chudik

Docket No. 2016-1817 DYK, REYNA, STOLL March 27, 2017 Brief Summary: Board affirmance of Examiner’s rejection of Mr. Chudik’s claims as anticipated reversed since “prior art that must be modified ‘to accomplish the function performed by the patent in question’ … Continue reading

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

Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc. (Akorn, Hi-Tech Pharm., Apotex)

Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953 patent (“Sandoz, Inc. has not … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Article III disputes, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment