-
Recent Posts
- Pattern illustrated in design patent limited to chairs due to prosecution history
- “[P]ost-interference examination period” was RCE time “attributable to Mayo” that reduced time of patent term adjustment (PTA)
- DC grant of SJ of no induced infringement affirmed, exclusion of expert report proper since Phigenix did not “timely disclose its narrowed infringement theory”
- DC grant of SJ to Genentech of no induced infringement affirmed, exclusion of expert report proper since Phigenix did not “timely disclose its narrowed infringement theory”
- Board properly decided to deny institution and dismiss IPRs on SAS remand instead of instituting on all grounds
Recent Comments
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Exhaustion and Repair
- Experimental Use
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Eligibility (101)
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Product-by-Process
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Accessibility
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unenforceability
- Unjust enrichment
- Utility
- Venue
- Willfullness
- Written description
Archives
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Article III disputes Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Obviousness-Teaching Away Patentability Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Software Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Copyright Notice
© Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com, [2011-2017]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Category Archives: Claim Differentiation
RealTime Data, LLC, DBA IXO vs. USPTO
Docket No. 2018-1154 (IPR2016-00783) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 10, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decision finding RT’s patent invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: RealTime’s (RT) appealed Board final written decision (FWD) finding the challenged claims of US 6,597,812 relating to … Continue reading
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC/Genzyme et al. v. Immunex Corp.
IPR2017-01879 and -01884 (US 8,679,487 B2) February 15, 2018 Brief summary: Sanofi’s IPR petitions against Immunex’s ‘487 patent directed to anti-IL-4R antibodies instituted on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. Sanofi’s previously denied IPR petition found not to prohibit filing of … Continue reading
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.
Docket No. 2016-1795 NEWMAN (C/D), DYK, TARANTO September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of JMOL to Motorola affirmed with respect to invalidity but reversed as to direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) (e.g., “the end user must be … Continue reading
Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2015-2067 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 12, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision finding of direct infringement by physicians and induced infringement (§ 271(b)) by Teva as well as no obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva et al. (“Teva”) appealed DC finding … Continue reading
Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc.
Docket No. 2016-1200 PROST, REYNA, HUGHES October 14, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on “clear and unequivocal statements” in the specification and during prosecution affirmed. Summary: Poly-America appealed DC claim construction of the term “short seal” in US … Continue reading
Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc.
Docket No. 2015-1256 LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN August 1, 2016 Brief Summary: DC’s constructions of “specified connection” and “UL connections” as well as its grant of SJ of noninfringement to Apple affirmed. Summary: Wi-LAN appealed DC grant of SJ of noninfringement … Continue reading
Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
Docket No. 2015-1129 NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL June 6, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim constructions based on specification and prosecution history found not to be erroneous and the judgment of noninfringement affirmed. Summary: Indacon appealed DC construction of the terms “alias” … Continue reading
