Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Hass Company

Docket No. 2015-1983, -2001 PROST, NEWMAN, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR sustaining the patentability of Rohm’s patents relating to polymers for use in paints and the like affirmed (e.g., Organik did not present any “evidence … Continue reading

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

Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

IPR Nos. 2017-00822, -00823, -01008, -01009 U.S. Pat. No. 9,085,619 B2 Decisions Not To Insitute (September 7, 2017) Brief summary: Board decided not to institute any of Coherus’s four petitions for IPR of claims 16-19 and 24-30 of Abbvie’s US … Continue reading

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

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