Category Archives: Article III disputes

Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc. (Akorn, Hi-Tech Pharm., Apotex)

Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953 patent (“Sandoz, Inc. has not … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Article III disputes, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1544 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES January 9, 2017 Brief Summary: Phigenix found not to have Article III standing for its appeal of PTAB final written decision after IPR. Summary: Phigenix appealed PTAB final written decision after IPR that claims … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S

Docket No. 2015-1597 PROST, LINN, TARANTO September 8, 2016 Brief Summary: DC dimissal DJ action of noninfringement for not pleading sufficient facts to show there was a substantial controversy reversed since Asetek, e.g., “demonstrate[ed] intent to enforce” its patents. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Infringement, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. / Astrazeneca AB v. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1456 and -1460 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY (C), TARANTO March 18, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decisions denying Mylan’s motions to dismiss actions based on its ANDA filing affirmed because, e.g., Mylan’s ANDA confirms “a plan to engage in real-world marketing” … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Generics / ANDA, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Docket Nos. 2015-1091 PROST, DYK, HUGHES December 2, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB decision regarding 35 USC § 315(b) not reviewed due to lack of jurisdiction (§ 314(d)); IPR proceeding is not unconstitutional; Board’s obviousness determination not erroneous. Summary: MCM appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Tesco Corporation v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. et al. (“NOV”)

Docket No. 2015-1041 NEWMAN(D), O’MALLEY, CHEN October 30, 2015 Brief Summary: Attorneys’ appeal regarding DC finding of bad faith dismissed as FC panel found “no on-going case or controversy” because the Tesco-NOV settlement makes it unnecessary for it to decide … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

Docket No. 2013-1377 PROST, RADER, HUGHES June 4, 2014 Brief Summary: Consumer Watchdog’s appeal regarding the PTAB decision affirming the validity of WARF’s US 7,029,913 directed to human embryonic stem cell cultures dismissed for failure to show an injury sufficient … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes | Leave a comment