Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading

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

Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Docket No. 2020-2334-40 (IPR2019-00578-82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2334.OPINION.5-24-2022_1955796.pdf) (Non-Precedential) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO May 24, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed. Summary: Cornell appealed USPTO Board final written decisions … Continue reading

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

DC grant of no invalidity of design patent reversed due to pre-critical date offer for sale

Larry K. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Martech Medical Products, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1649 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1649.OPINION.2-10-2022_1906548.pdf) DYK, REYNA, STOLL February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding no invalidity of design patent for invalidity due to pre-critical date offer for sale … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

FC panel finds negative limitation sufficiently described, affirms DC finding of no invalidity

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 3, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC finding Novartis patent not invalid for lack of written description of … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Moderna did not show Arbutus claims obvious affirmed

Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. Docket No. 2020-2329 (IPR2-19-00554) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2329.OPINION.12-1-2021_1872458.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, STOLL December 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of non-obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Moderna appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR holding the claims of US 8,058,069 … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding Moderna did not show Arbutus claims obvious affirmed

Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. Docket No. 2020-2329 (IPR2-19-00554) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2329.OPINION.12-1-2021_1872458.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, STOLL December 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of non-obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Moderna appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR holding the claims of US 8,058,069 … Continue reading

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

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