Category Archives: Article III disputes

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

AbbVie, Inc. et al. v. Medimmune Limited

Docket No. 2017-1689 PROST, DYK, CHEN February 5, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of AbbVie’s DJ action affirmed since its requested “declaration would not actually resolve the parties’ contractual dispute” (Medimmune, US 2007). Summary: AbbVie appealed DC grant of Medimmune’s … Continue reading

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

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