Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

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 v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2396, -1213 MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of inherent anticipation reversed as it relied on a second reference to provide limitations missing from … Continue reading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

DC decision of infringement and no Safe Harbor (§ 271(e)(1)) for Hospira’s EPO affirmed

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc. Docket Nos. 2019-1067, -1102 MOORE, BRYSON, CHEN December 16, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of JMOL and new trial after jury findings of infringement, no anticipation and no Safe Harbor for certain batches … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Safe Harbor, FDA exemptions (271(e)(1)), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2152 (PGR2017-00012) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for error in disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant. Summary: Liqwd appealed Board post-grant review (PGR) decision … Continue reading

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