Category Archives: Claim Construction

Board construction of “wherein” clause affirmed; remanded for review of non-instituted grounds

Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP Docket Nos. 2018-1812 (IPR2016-01502) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA October 29, 2019 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction of the “wherein” clause affirmed; decision remanded for consideration of non-instituted grounds. Summary: Alere appealed Board IPR final … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Functional limitations, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Wherein | Leave a comment

HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1691 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL to Gilead finding HCV treatment patent invalid for enabled affirmed; FC panel also finds lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Horizon’s OB ‘913 claim 12 survives obviousness challenge (Pennsaid® for osteoarthritis)

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grant of SJ of non-infringement reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”

NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-2363 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 7, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Grant of SJ reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”. Summary: NeuroGrafix … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB IPR decision finding OSI’s Tarceva® patent obvious reversed (e.g., “unpredictability in cancer treatment generally”, reasonable expectation of success only with hindsight)

OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1925 (IPR2016-01284) NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 4, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s IPR decision holding OSI’s OB ‘221 patent obvious reversed (e.g., the PTAB “misinterpreted the asserted references”, “NSCLC treatment was … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part due to “ever-so-slight differences in design, in light of the overall similarities”

Campbell Soup Co. et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2029, -2030 (IPR2017-00091, -00094) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE September 26, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part and affirmed-in-part (i.e., Lintz is a proper primary reference and Samways … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Design Patents, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Covered Business Method (CBM) eligibility decision remanded under revised claim construction

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB determination of CBM eligibility reversed since, e.g., “SIPCO’s claims combine certain communication elements in a particular way to address a specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Covered Business Method Reviews, Uncategorized | Leave a comment