Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

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(http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1928.OPINION.6-17-2021_1792142.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY June 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision finding MSFT failed to show FG’s claims to be unpatentable affirmed.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(http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1600.OPINION.3-15-2021_1747758.pdf) (Non-Precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 15, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR finding of anticipation based on claim construction affirmed (e.g., negative limitation not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

Injunction, damages, infringement and invalidity decisions regarding Illumina’s fetal testing patents affirmed

Verinata Health, Inc., Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Mol. Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Enablement, Infringement, Software | Leave a comment

Prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar holdings reversed (e.g., must be accessible to the public)

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Company, et al. Docket No. 2019-1243 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions finding prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar reversed and remanded. Summary: BASF appealed DC decision granted … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment