Category Archives: Inherency

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

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

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

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

Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Update (April 19, 2019 (non-precedential)): On remand of this decision (“US Water I”), the jury found no inherent anticipation and awarded damages of about $7.5 million. But the DC partially … Continue reading

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

Grunenthal Gmbh et al. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., Hikma Pharm., Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2017-1153, -2048-50 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions of nonobviousness of Grunenthal’s polymorph claims, no induced or contributory infringement due to section viii carve-out, and specific utility of the claimed polymorph affirmed. Summary: Alkem … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Inherency, Obviousness, Utility | Leave a comment

In Re: Qapsule Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1772 NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL March 11, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision of anticipation based on inherent disclosure affirmed. Summary: Qapsule appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision finding certain claims of its application directed to a synthetic pharmaceutical capsule anticipated … Continue reading

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

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1599 (IPR2013-00596) MOORE, TARANTO, CHEN March 8, 2019 Brief summary: Board’s IPR decision that PersonalWeb’s claims were unpatentable for obviousness reversed because “the Board’s reliance on inherency…was improper” and “Apple provided no other basis for” the disputed claim … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re: Ikeda Food Research Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-2624 WALLACH, TARANTO, HUGHES January 29, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision affirming the rejection of claims directed to method for measuring blood glucose using a biosensor as obvious due to inherent disclosure by the prior art affirmed. … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness | Leave a comment