Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

U.S. Water Services, Inc., Roy Johnson v. Novozymes A/S et al.

Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Update (April 19, 2019 (non-precedential)): On remand of this decision (“US Water I”), the jury found no inherent anticipation and awarded damages of about $7.5 million. But the DC partially … Continue reading

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

Grunenthal Gmbh et al. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., Hikma Pharm., Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2017-1153, -2048-50 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions of nonobviousness of Grunenthal’s polymorph claims, no induced or contributory infringement due to section viii carve-out, and specific utility of the claimed polymorph affirmed. Summary: Alkem … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Inherency, Obviousness, Utility | Leave a comment

Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1520, -1521 (IPR2016-01385, -01388) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO March 26, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR findings of AC’s ‘188 patent claims unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness vacated (e.g., inventor proved prior conception and diligent reduction to practice); finding ‘822 … Continue reading

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

In Re: Qapsule Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1772 NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL March 11, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision of anticipation based on inherent disclosure affirmed. Summary: Qapsule appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision finding certain claims of its application directed to a synthetic pharmaceutical capsule anticipated … Continue reading

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

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | 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 (FC panel); June 25, 2018 (SCOTUS); Jan. 24, 2019 (SCOTUS) Update 2 (Jan. 24, 2019): Update 2 (Jan. 24, 2019): SCOTUS affirmed the FC panel decision, holding that “a commercial … Continue reading

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

Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd. v. Pronova Biopharm Norge AS

Docket No. 2017-2620 (US 9,447,360) Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00033 Final Written Decision (January 16, 2019) Brief summary: Board PGR decision finding claims 1-21 and 26 of Nippon’s fish oil-related claims unpatentable for indefiniteness, anticipation and obviousness affirmed (claims 22-25 were cancelled). … Continue reading

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