Category Archives: Inherency

FC panel affirms DC finding that Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents are not invalid, but also that method of treatment claims are invalid, for obviousness

Posted on April 21, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. Docket No. 2020-1147, 1149-51 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1147.OPINION.4-19-2023_2113208.pdf) LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, STARK April 19, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding that two of Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents not invalid for obviousness affirmed.  DC finding that another of … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed

Posted on April 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arbutus Biopharma Corp., et al. v. Modenatx, Inc. FKA Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1183 (IPR2018-00680) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1183.OPINION.4-11-2023_2108936.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, CHEN April 11, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed. Summary:  Arbutus … Continue reading →

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

IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Posted on October 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. Docket No. 2021-2121 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2121.OPINION.9-29-2022_2010851.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed

Posted on June 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Docket No. 2020-2334-40 (IPR2019-00578-82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2334.OPINION.5-24-2022_1955796.pdf) (Non-Precedential) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO May 24, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed. Summary: Cornell appealed USPTO Board final written decisions … Continue reading →

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

Galderma’s ivermectin claims not inherently anticipated since “claimed efficacy limitations” not disclosed by single prior art reference

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Galderma Labs., L.P. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2396, -1213 MOORE, O’MALLEY, STOLL January 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of inherent anticipation reversed as it relied on a second reference to provide limitations missing from … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, Inherency | Leave a comment

Genentech’s antibody purification claims correctly found anticipated or obviousness in IPR, Fed. Cir. decides

Posted on January 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (United States, Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-1933 (IPR2016-01837) PROST, NEWMAN, CHEN January 10, 2020 Brief Summary: Board’s IPR anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed. Summary: Genentech appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR final written decision (FWD) finding certain claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“[R]esult that was inherent in the prior art” cannot overcome obviousness based on inherency

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

Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC Docket Nos. 2019-1329, -1367 NEWMAN, LOURIE, TARANTO January 9, 2020 Brief Summary: DC obviousness judgment of affirmed as “wherein” clause only describes “a result that was inherent in the prior art”. Summary: Hospira … Continue reading →

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Persion’s Zohydro ER claims invalid for obviousness and lack of written description (“inherently result in the claimed [PK] parameters”, functional limitations too broad)

Posted on January 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2361 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN December 27, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of invalidity of Persion’s hepatic insufficiency claims related to Zohydro ER for obviousness and no WD affirmed. Summary: Persion … Continue reading →

Posted in Functional limitations, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Uncategorized, Written description | 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

Federal Circuit reverses DC and finds Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 Vimovo® Orange Book patents invalid for lack of written description

Posted on May 20, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Medicines LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. et al. Docket No. 2017-2473, -2481, -2484, -2486, -2489, -2491-93 PROST, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC reversed as FC panel found found Nuvo/Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 claims to … Continue reading →

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