Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

IPR finding insufficient disclosure of range percentage and anticipation affirmed

Invidior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., et al. Docket No. 2020-2073, -2142 (IPR2019-00329) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2073.OPINION.11-24-2021_1870396.pdf) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 24, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision affirmed due to lack of written description of claimed range and affirmed as to … Continue reading

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

DC finding that Horizon’s OB patents are obvious and/or not infringed affirmed

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Docket No. 2021-1480 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1480.OPINION.11-16-2021_1865455.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC refusal to change inventorship, finding of obviousness and no infringement of Horizon’s patents affirmed. Summary:  Horizon appealed DC finding … Continue reading

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

FC panel finds MSFT’s IPR obviousness arguments lack particularity and affirms Board claim construction and no anticipation finding

Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC Docket No. 2020-1928 (IPR2018-01594) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1928.OPINION.6-17-2021_1792142.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY June 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision finding MSFT failed to show FG’s claims to be unpatentable affirmed. Summary:  MSFT appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision that … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Baxter’s claims nonobvious reversed due in part to erroneous claim construction

Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Baxter Corporation Englewood Docket No. 2020-1937 (IPR2019-00119) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1937.OPINION.5-28-2021_1784040.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK May 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision of no obviousness reversed based in part on erroneous claim construction. Summary:  Becton appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR … Continue reading

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

Ex Parte Eckhardt, et al. (3M Innovative Properties)

USPTO Appeal Decision regarding U.S. Ser. No. 14/443,426 Appeal 2020-003463 April 15, 2021 Brief Summary:  Anticipation rejections reversed due to “picking and choosing from various lists” in the prior art. Summary:  3M appealed anticipation rejection of its claims to, e.g., … Continue reading

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

IPR anticipation finding affirmed as negative limitation lacks support; refusal to enter amended claims as anticipated reversed due to improper analysis

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1600 (IPR2018-00936) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1600.OPINION.3-15-2021_1747758.pdf) (Non-Precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 15, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR finding of anticipation based on claim construction affirmed (e.g., negative limitation not supported); reversed and remanded as to proposed … Continue reading

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

Board correctly determined references on website were publicly accessible; improper change of grounds vacated and remanded

M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1160 (IPR2018-00696) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1160.OPINION.2-1-2021_1726200.pdf) MOORE, BRYSON, CHEN February 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board public accessibility finding affirmed; anticipation determination vacated and remanded for improper change in grounds from obviousness. Summary:  M&K … Continue reading

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

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