Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC findings of infringement and validity of one UCB rotigotine patent and invalidity of another as anticipated by use in a single patient in a clinical trial affirmed

UCB, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1397, -1453 TARANTO, SCHALL, CHEN June 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions finding that UCB’s ‘434 patent was infringed under DOE and not invalid and UCB’s ‘414 patent … Continue reading

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

Time bar not triggered by change in real party in interest, Board claim construction/ invalidity determinations of Mayne’s claims affirmed

Mayne Pharma Int. v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1593 (IPR2016-01186) LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY June 21, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR time bar and claim construction/invalidity determinations affirmed. Summary: Mayne appealed the USPTO’s (Board’s) IPR … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit affirmed DC claim construction finding that “100% by weight” limitation can include “residual moisture”

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC Docket 2017-2575 O’MALLEY, REYNA, HUGHES April 17, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding that “platelets in an amount of 100% by weight” can include “some residual dispersant” and its denial … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement | 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