Category Archives: Inherency

Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company

Docket Nos. 2017-1032 DYK, REYNA, WALLACH January 5, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision following inter partes reexamination affirming rejection of Monsanto’s US 7,790,953 directed to methods for producing soybean seeds as anticipated (inherency) or obvious affirmed. Summary: Monsanto appealed PTAB … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., Alcon Labs., Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1499, -1500, -1558, -1559 MOORE, MAYER, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of no obviousness affirmed (efficacy limitations not in the prior art of record); finding of literal infringement of certain claims reversed (ANDA does … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Inherency, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

HTC corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-1880 (IPR2014-01134) DYK, REYNA, TARANTO December 18, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction affirmed, as were resultant findings of no explicity or inherent anticipation, or obviousness. Summary: HTC appealed PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) that HTC failed … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-2287 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES September 8, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB obviousness conclusion affirmed (30% reduction limitation is “an observed result on an old process”). Summary: Southwire appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision that claims 1-42 of US 7,557,301 … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1996 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH August 1, 2017 Brief summary: Board affirmance of obviousness rejections vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred “in dismissing properties of the claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to unpredictability and … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

U.S. Water Services, Inc., Roy Johnson v. Novozymes A/S et al.

Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for invalidity (inherent anticipation) reversed; grant of SJ of no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: U.S. Water (USW) appealed DC grant of SJ to Novozymes … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inequitable Conduct, Inherency | Leave a comment