Category Archives: Indefiniteness

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Docket No. 2015-2021(22 others) MOORE, BRYSON, HUGHES May 16, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC findings that the proposed ANDA of Endo’s OPANA®ER infringe the claims, and that those claims are not invalid for obviousness or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Docket No. 2017-2368 PROST, MOORE, STOLL March 7, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: FC panel reversed the DC finding that “ascertains an apparent signature” is indefinite as it would be “understood in light of the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