Category Archives: Article III disputes

Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. OSMI, Inc. et al. (“Stellar”)

Docket No. 2016-2641 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since Stellar only took action against Allied’s distributors in MX but no action against Allied (in MX or the US). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Docket No. 2016-1123 (IPR2014-00070) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY August 7, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision that Personal Audio’s ‘504 claims were anticipated and/or obvious affirmed. EFF found to have standing to defend PTAB decision since Personal Audio was appellant and the … Continue reading

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

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Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953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