Category Archives: Conception and Reduction to Practice

DC finding that Horizon’s OB patents are obvious and/or not infringed affirmed

Posted on November 17, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Docket No. 2021-1480 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1480.OPINION.11-16-2021_1865455.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC refusal to change inventorship, finding of obviousness and no infringement of Horizon’s patents affirmed. Summary:  Horizon appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment

ITC findings that Bio-Rad infringed and does not co-own 10X patents affirmed

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 10X Genomics Inc. Docket No. 2020-1785 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1785.OPINION.4-29-2021_1770917.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC infringement and no co-ownership findings affirmed. Summary:  Bio-Rad appealed International Trade Commission (ITC) decision finding infringement and … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC decision adding Dana Farber/GI (Pfizer) inventors to Ono/BMS anti-PD1 patents affirmed

Posted on July 21, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharm. Co., et al. (Bristol-Myers Squibb) Docket No. 2019-2050 NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL July 14, 2020 Brief Summary: DC order to add Dana Farber and GI/Pfizer inventors to the Ono/BMS relating to the use of … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board IPR decision invalidating design patents for obviousness

Posted on July 3, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1259-60 (IPR2016-00816, -00826) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN July 2, 2019 Brief summary:  Board IPR decision of invalidity of Kolcraft’s design patents affirmed as evidence regarding inventor’s date of conception was uncorroborated. … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Design Patents, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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

Posted on June 5, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

ATI Technologies ULC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Posted on April 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608 (IPR2015-00325, -00326, -00330) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH April 11, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB finding of invalidity due to ATI’s lack of diligence before filing its patent applications reversed (e.g., “[t]he PTAB identified no delays” or “gaps … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Diligence, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Posted on January 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | Leave a comment

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S

Posted on April 19, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1681 (IPR2015-01403) MOORE, LINN, CHEN April 17, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) finding anticipation and obviousness, and rejected Apator’s proffered evidence of prior conception since it was based only on the inventor’s own statements … Continue reading →

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

Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Posted on April 5, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1554, -1556, -1557 (IPR2015-01201; IPR2016-00209, -00962) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 2, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s obviousness determination following IPR affirmed because, e.g., Raytheon did “not explain why the resulting device” (of the prior) “would be rendered inoperable … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Nintendo of America Inc. et al. v. iLife Technologies, Inc.

Posted on December 29, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others (e.g., “prototype has … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment