Category Archives: Claim Construction

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. (DRL), Actavis/Watson, Teva, Par, Intelgenx, Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC Docket Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177 Newman, Mayer (D), Lourie July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings that Invidior … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Time bar not triggered by change in real party in interest, Board claim construction/ invalidity determinations of Mayne’s claims affirmed

Mayne Pharma Int. v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1593 (IPR2016-01186) LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY June 21, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR time bar and claim construction/invalidity determinations affirmed. Summary: Mayne appealed the USPTO’s (Board’s) IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding mesalamine method claims obvious affirmed, Salix’s appeal of DC non-infringment holding dismissed

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Generico, LLC et al., Salix Pharm. v. Mylan Pharm. Docket 2017-2312 (IPR2016-00297, -01386, -01409); 2017-2636, 2018-1320 LOURIE, LINN, WALLACH June 12, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s IPR obviousness determination affirmed and Salix’s appeal of DC … Continue reading

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

Board IPR nonobviousess decision vacated for failing to consider “different limitation”

Packers Plus Energy Services Inv. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC Docket 2018-1490 (IPR2016-01099) LOURIE, LINN, WALLACH June 10, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: IPR decision of nonobviousness affirmed for certain claims but vacated as one other Summary: Packer Plus (PP) … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit affirmed DC claim construction finding that “100% by weight” limitation can include “residual moisture”

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC Docket 2017-2575 O’MALLEY, REYNA, HUGHES April 17, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding that “platelets in an amount of 100% by weight” can include “some residual dispersant” and its denial … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement | Leave a comment

USPTO IPR claim construction and obviousness determinations for network communications claims affirmed

Bradium Technologies LLC v. Andre Iancu (USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2017-257, -2580 (IPR2016-00448, -00449) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN May 13, 2019 Brief summary: Board claim construction and obviousness determinations affirmed (e.g., no “clear and unambiguous definition limiting the term to only … Continue reading

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

Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1777 (IPR2016-01733) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 23, 2019 Brief summary: Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion, and Board claim construction … Continue reading

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