Category Archives: Indefiniteness

DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”

Posted on March 18, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. OKI Data Americas, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1189.OPINION.2-10-2021_1730931.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, TARANTO February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”. Summary:  Infinity appealed DC indefiniteness finding regarding US Pat. … Continue reading →

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

DC claim construction and indefiniteness findings affirmed; ineligibility conclusions not reached by FC panel

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Funambol, Inc. Docket No. 2020-2196, -2199 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2196.OPINION.2-12-2021_1732513.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO February 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, invalidity for indefiniteness, and grant of SJ affirmed. Summary:  Synchronoss appealed DC claim constructions and grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ of infringement to Lilly under DOE affirmed

Posted on December 31, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly And Company v. Apotex, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1328 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1328.OPINION.12-21-2020_1705369.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, STOLL December 21, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary:  Apotex appealed DC grant of Lilly’s motion for summary judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

DC decision invalidating claims for indefiniteness of the term “half-liquid” affirmed

Posted on August 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2400 PROST, REYNA, HUGHES July 31, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of invalidity for indefiniteness of the term “half-liquid” affirmed. Summary: IBSA appealed DC decision finding claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness findings vacated and remanded (Nautilus standard controls, only general-purpose computer or processor requires a specific algorithm)

Posted on April 10, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. Docket No. 2018-2220, -2349 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 9, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ based on its indefiniteness finding vacated and remanded (e.g., the correct standard is the Nautilus “reasonable … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Horizon’s petition for en banc rehearing regarding indefiniteness denied (four judges dissented regarding “consisting essentially of”))

Posted on February 26, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 (update Feb. 25, 2020) Update (2/25/20): Petition for en banc hearing denied. Judges Lourie, Newman, O’Malley and Stoll … Continue reading →

Posted in comprising, consisting of, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Horizon’s OB ‘913 claim 12 survives obviousness challenge (Pennsaid® for osteoarthritis)

Posted on October 11, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC (Appellee)) / Hyosung TNS Inc. et al. (intervenors)

Posted on August 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2553 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY August 15, 2018 Brief summary: ITC finding that Diebold violated § 337 by importing components of automated teller machines (“ATMs”) that infringe means-plus-function claims reversed as invalid for indefiniteness (§ 112, para. 6). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Grunenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharm. USA, et al.

Posted on May 21, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-2021(22 others) MOORE, BRYSON, HUGHES May 16, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC findings that the proposed ANDA of Endo’s OPANA®ER infringe the claims, and that those claims are not invalid for obviousness or indefiniteness, affirmed. Summary: Teva et … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Infringement, Injunction, Obviousness | Leave a comment