Category Archives: Article III disputes

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Docket No. 2017-1694 (IPR2015-01537) NEWMAN, DYK, CHEN February 7, 2019 Brief summary: Momenta’s appeal of PTAB FWD finding BMS’s claims relating to its Orencia CTLA4Ig product patentable dismissed as moot because evidence showed Momenta had abandoned its Orencia biosimilar project … Continue reading

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

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2597 (many others) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 22, 2019 Brief summary: FC panel concluded the DC’s judgment was not final and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. Summary: Princeton (PDIC) licensed US 4,813,056 to Adobe with the promise “not … Continue reading

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

Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH

Docket No. 2017-2596 (IPR2016-01665) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Board decision finding UCB’s ‘650 patent relating to Pfizer’s Toviaz product was not shown invalid for obviousness affirmed. UCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing since Amerigen’s … Continue reading

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

Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. et al. (JH) v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC (PET)

Docket No. 2016-2700 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL December 7, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of JH’s DJ action against reversed and remanded since PET’s letters to the Banks charging infringement established minimum contacts in the ND TX and PET did not … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1828 (IPR2016-00046) PROST, DYK, O’MALLEY August 3, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that JTEKT “failed to establish an actual injury sufficient to control Article III standing” (injury must be ‘concrete and particularized’” and not “conjectural or hypothetical”; … Continue reading

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

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1487 (PGR2015-00011) O’MALLEY, SCHALL (D), WALLACH May 2, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB FWD after PRG of Paragon’s patent relating to the use of chirally pure R-phenylephrine in ophthalmic compositions reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. Summary: Altaire appealed PTAB final … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2475 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO May 11, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of AHF’s request for DJ for not relating to a current “substantial controversy” affirmed. Summary: AHF appealed DC dismissal of its request for a declaratory judgment (DJ) … Continue reading

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