Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

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

RealTime Data, LLC, DBA IXO vs. USPTO

Docket No. 2018-1154 (IPR2016-00783) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 10, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decision finding RT’s patent invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: RealTime’s (RT) appealed Board final written decision (FWD) finding the challenged claims of US 6,597,812 relating to … Continue reading

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

AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com et al.

Docket No. 2018-1433 (IPR2015-01802) MOORE, SCHALL, STOLL January 9, 2019 Brief summary: Board’s reconsideration after FWD found not to violate AC’s due process since Board was obligated to consider all grounds and AC had an opportunity to respond. Summary: AC … Continue reading

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

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Enplas Display Device Corp. et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Docket Nos. 2016-2599 NEWMAN, HUGHES, STOLL Nov. 19, 2018 Brief summary: DC findings of no anticipation affirmed; damages award vacated (e.g., “damages calculated by applying a royalty rate to sales of non-accused lenses cannot support a jury’s verdict on damages”). … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment

Pfizer, Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.

IPR2017-01488 (US 6,407,213B1; IPR2017-02139 joined (Samsung Bioepis Co.)) Final Written Decision November 29, 2018 Brief summary: Certain claims of Genentech’s US 6,407,213B1 shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable for obviousness. Only claims 12, 42, 60, 65, … Continue reading

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