-
Recent Posts
- Non-obviousness finding for Relistor® OB-listed formulation patent reversed due to structural and functional similarity to prior art compounds
- Public FDA hearing is a printed publication, Hulu IPR decision does not apply to examination
- IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision
- Rejected claim construction proposal during IPR was not prosecution history estoppel, FC affirms infringement under DOE; second infringement decision reversed
- FB improperly joined to its existing IPRs under 315(c); various obviousness conclusions affirmed and vacated
Recent Comments
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Bankruptcy
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- comprising
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- consisting of
- 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 (Secondary Considerations)
- 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
- Safe Harbor, FDA exemptions (271(e)(1))
- Section 101 (see also Patentability)
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unenforceability
- Unjust enrichment
- Utility
- Venue
- Wherein
- Willfullness
- Written description
Archives
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- 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
- 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 Inherency 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: Indefiniteness
Horizon’s petition for en banc rehearing regarding indefiniteness denied (four judges dissented regarding “consisting essentially of”))
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)
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
ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed
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
Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC (Appellee)) / Hyosung TNS Inc. et al. (intervenors)
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
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Grunenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharm. USA, et al.
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
Capital Security Systems, Inc. v. NCR Corporation, et al.
Docket No. 2017-2368 PROST, MOORE, STOLL March 7, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: FC panel reversed the DC finding that “ascertains an apparent signature” is indefinite as it would be “understood in light of the specification…with reasonable certainty”, but agreed with … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness
Leave a comment
Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC
Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading
