Category Archives: Injunction

DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from Orange Book affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2023-1186 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1186.OPINION.2-24-2023_2085825.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, TARANTO February 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from OB affirmed. Summary:  Jazz appealed DC grant of an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Injunction, Method claims | Leave a comment

DC grant of PI vacated and remanded as Lite-Netics’ infringement allegations not objectively baseless (First Amendment issues relating to customer letters addressed)

Posted on February 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, Holiday Bright Lights (“HBL”) Docket No. 2023-1146 (h https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1146.OPINION.2-17-2023_2082508.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STARK February 17, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC grant of PI vacated and remanded based on the DC’s abuse of discretion in … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Injunction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

ITC decision reversed as Chamberlain disavowed openers lacking infrared detectors

Posted on December 13, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. et al. v. Int. Trade Comm., The Chamberlain Group, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2191 LOURIE, DYK, WALLACH December 12, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction and final determination of infringement reversed and vacated. Summary: Techtronic et al. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Injunction, International Trade Commission, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC correctly denied preliminary injunction since Propel showed evidence of anticipation by parent patent application

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Injunction, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. et al.

Posted on November 28, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-2167, -21696 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL Nov. 20, 2018 (Non-precedential) Brief summary: DC order granting Invidior’s preliminary injunction reversed and remanded (“‘305 patent expressly disclaimed, through remarks in the specification, solely using conventional top air drying” and “claim … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Injunction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Intersil Corporation et al.

Posted on July 11, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2388 DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES July 6, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision regarding trade secret misappropriation and damages, and patent infringement, affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded. Summary: This opinion is a modified opinion of that originally-issued on May 1, 2018. … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Injunction, Trade Secret | Leave a comment

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Grunenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharm. USA, et al.

Posted on May 21, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Infineon Technologies AG et al.

Posted on February 15, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1448 PROST, WALLACH, STOLL January 29, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of PI based on its finding that Infineon’s termination of an agreement was ineffective and order requiring Infineon to comply with the agreement affirmed, but vacated and … Continue reading →

Posted in Injunction | Leave a comment

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

Posted on November 24, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al.

Posted on October 9, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s exclusion of post-priority-date evidence relating to whether a representative number of species were described in the patents’ specifications reversed and remanded; grant of permanent injunction against Sanofi therefore … Continue reading →

Posted in Injunction, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment