Category Archives: Claim Construction

USPTO decision finding Sony’s CD recording claims obvious reversed by Federal Circuit due to improper means-plus-function determination (“computer-implemented” limitation requires algorithm)

Sony Corporation v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1172 (IPR2016-00834) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 22, 2019 Brief summary: IPR FWD obviousness finding reversed and remanded as disputed means-plus-function limitation is computer-implemented and requires an algorithm and Board … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness

BTG Int. Ltd. and Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. Docket Nos. 2019-1147, -1148. -1323, -1324, -1325 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN May 14, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 … Continue reading

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

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2018-1551 and -1552 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA May 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC claim construction findings and grant of SJ of non-infringement to Sandoz regarding its Neupogen® and Neulasta® biosimilars affirmed. Summary: Amgen appealed two DC decisions finding Sandoz’s … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

Endo Pharm. Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC v. Actavis LLC et al.

Docket No. 2018-1054 WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL May 3, 2019 Brief summary: DC holding that Endo’s claims to low “ABUK” oxymorphone were not shown to be invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC holding that claims 1-6 of Endo’s US … Continue reading

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

Endo Pharm. Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC v. Actavis LLC et al.

Docket No. 2018-1054 WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL May 3, 2019 Brief summary: DC holding that Endo’s claims to low “ABUK” oxymorphone were not shown to be invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC holding that claims 1-6 of Endo’s US … Continue reading

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

Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.

Docket No. 2018-1309 PROST, DYK, WALLACH April 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC decision finding infringement of ‘727 claim 1 affirmed; others reversed and remanded for state of mind analysis and to determine whether there were predicate acts of infringement; willfulness … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, et al.

Docket No. 2018-1076 LOURIE, LINN, TARANTO February 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC judgment that Intel did not infringe CC’s asserted patents vacated and remanded due to DC’s erroneous claim construction (e.g., no clear disavowel of claim scope). Summary: CC appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment