Category Archives: Claim Construction

IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision

Genentech, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2019-1263, -1265, -1267, -1270 IPRs 2017-00731, -01121, -02063, -00737, -01122, -01960 LOURIE, MOORE, WALLACH March 26, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction (e.g., “effective amount”), obviousness conclusion and denial of amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Rejected claim construction proposal during IPR was not prosecution history estoppel, FC affirms infringement under DOE; second infringement decision reversed

Galderma Labs., Nestle Skin Health S.A. et al. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC et al. Docket No. 2019-1021 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL March 25, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of infringement of certain claims affirmed as statements made in related IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IPR decision of obviousness of method of treatment claim reversed for erroneous claim construction

Kaken Pharm. Co., Inc., Bausch Health Cos. Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2018-2232 (IPR2017-00190, -01429) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO March 13, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision reversed based on erroneous claim construction in method of treatment claim. Summary: Kaken appealed … Continue reading

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

Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as claim construction excluded preferred embodiment

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1165 (IPR2017-01264) PROST, DYK, WALLACH March 3, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision of no obviousness of certain mapping-related claims reversed as claim construction would exclude the preferred embodiment; obviousness … Continue reading

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

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Means-plus-function, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC obviousness and infringement decisions regarding coffee filter claims affirmed

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Ent., Inc. et al. (“ARM”) Docket No. 2018-2215, -2254 DYK, REYNA, HUGHES January 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions that ARM’s claims are invalid for obviousness and not infringed, and that ARM willfully … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. reverses DC and finds Amneal’s Sensipar®-related product infringes Amgen ‘405 patent

Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., Pirimal, et al., Zydus Pharm., Cadila et al. Docket Nos. 2018-2414, 2019-1086 NEWMAN, LOURIE, TARANTO January 7, 2020 Brief Summary: DC claim construction reversed (“composition comprising” not closed to other components); no infringement by Amneal … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment