Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Posted on January 22, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

IPR decision vacated and remanded for failure to compare “purposes or problems” of patent and alleged analogous art

Posted on November 13, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC Docket No. 2020-1104 (IPR2018-00708) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1104.OPINION.11-9-2020_1682293.pdf) PROST, DYK, HUGHES November 9, 2020 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision vacated and remanded as it “failed to properly identify and compare the purposes or problems” of … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

IPR FWD invalidating Immunex’s “human antibody” claims invalidated (“nothing in the claim’s language restricts ‘human antibodies’ to those that are fully human”)

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

Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1749, -1777 (IPR2017-01879, -01884) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 13, 2020 Brief Summary:  Immunex appealed two IPR final written decisions (FWDs) invalidating the challenged claims of US 8,679,487 … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Terminal Disclaimers | Leave a comment

DC claim construction reversed; joined party in IPR can raise new obviousness arguments; no improper broadening during reissue

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al. Docket No. 2018-2338-39, -2395-96 PROST, NEWMAN, BRYSON September 24, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction affirmed and reversed (“ordinary meaning”); joinder rule did not prevent HP from raising new obviousness arguments that … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed (insufficient evidence of nexus between claims and license agreements)

Posted on September 21, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1732, -1752 (IPR2017-01669, -02044 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 8, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed (e.g., insufficient evidence nexus between claims and secondary considerations (license agreements)). Summary: … Continue reading →

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

IPR decision finding Anacor’s KERYDIN® patents invalid for obviousness affirmed

Posted on September 1, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2019-2264-2267 (IPR2018-00168-00171, -01358-01361) PROST, NEWMAN (D), HUGHES August 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: IPR decisions finding Anacor’s tavaborole (5%) (KERYDIN®) patents invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., “concentration is a result-effective variable”). … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for insufficient explanation

Posted on August 19, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., et al. Docket No. 2019-1467, -1468 (IPR2017-01409-10, -01736-7, IPR2018-00338-9) MOORE, CHEN, STOLL July 31, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as Board’s explanation was not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”. … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness decision based on common sense modification of prior art affirmed

Posted on July 1, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1935, -1936 (IPR2017-01275, -01276) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES June 26, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision based in part on common sense affirmed. Summary: B/E appealed Board final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness and non-obviousness findings affirmed (e.g,. the Board “explained why”)

Posted on June 9, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., Andrei Iancu (USPTO, intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1582, -1635 (IPR2017-01812, -01920) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR final written decisions finding certain of Boston’s claim unpatentable for obviousness and … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness decision affirmed; Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d)

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

ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC Docket No. 2019-1659 (IPR2019-02197) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES May 19, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed. Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d). Summary: ESIP appealed Board IPR decision … Continue reading →

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