Category Archives: Indefiniteness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Security Systems, Inc. v. NCR Corporation, et al.

Posted on March 8, 2018 by

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

Posted on January 17, 2018 by

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 →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Posted on December 12, 2017 by

Docket Nos. 2016-2550, -2553 LOURIE (C), REYNA, TARANTO December 11, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of indefiniteness of claims requiring a comparison of immediate and extended release formulations affirmed. Summary: Forest appealed DC finding that all of the asserted … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.

Posted on November 24, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-2607, -2650 DYK, MOORE, TARANTO November 21, 2017 Brief summary: DC conclusion of no indefiniteness, that “ATC was entitled to the defense of absolute intervening rights”, and denial of enhanced damages affirmed. Award of lost profits and permanent … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Indefiniteness, Injunction, Lost Profits | Leave a comment