Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Termination of IPR outside of FC jurisdiction, including regarding sanctions

Posted on May 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1759 (IPR2015-00826) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1759.OPINION.5-13-2022_1951471.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL May 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   Appeal dismissed as FC lacked jurisdiction over IPR termination. Summary:  Atlanta Gas appealed USPTO IPR decision termination … Continue reading →

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

IPR finding of no obviousness reversed as “generic industry skepticism cannot, standing alone, preclude a finding of motivation to combine”

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

Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1732 (IPR2019-1533) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1732.OPINION.4-29-2022_1943629.pdf) DYK, PROST, REYNA (D) April 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   IPR finding of no obviousness reversed and remanded as industry skepticism was too general and not specific … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decision reversed due to erroneous claim construction

Posted on April 26, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Amgen Inc. et al. v. USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-2171 (IPR2016-01542) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2171.OPINION.4-14-2022_1936036.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, SCHALL, STOLL April 14, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision reversed due to erroneous claim construction (“[a] straightforward reading of the claim language”, “the … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative limitation need not be disclosed by prior art)

Posted on March 22, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2331 (IPR2019-00207, -01095 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2331.OPINION.3-14-2022_1920940.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM March 14, 2022 Brief Summary:  Board IPR FWD finding Almirall’s method of treatment claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Negative Limitations, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding obviousness and denying entry of amended claims for lack of written description affirmed

Posted on March 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation Docket No. 2021-1561 (IPR2019-01566) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1561.OPINION.3-10-2022_1919730.pdf) LOURIE, HUGHES, STOLL March 10, 2022 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR FWD finding parachute systems claims obvious and denial of entry of amended claims for lacking written description affirmed. … Continue reading →

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

DC denial of preliminary injunction reversed as Sarepta’s IPR filings violated forum selection clause

Posted on March 9, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Nippon Sinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2369 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2369.OPINION.2-8-2022_1904898.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL February 8, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC denial of preliminary injunction against Sarepta’s IPR filings reversed. Summary:  Nippon appealed from DC DE decision denying its motion … Continue reading →

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

FC panel affirms Board dismissal of third IPR following patentability finding in other simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same claims under section 315(e)(1)

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

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2021-1481 (IPR2-18-01248) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1481.OPINION.2-11-2022_1907139.pdf) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL February 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Intuitive’s appeal of pending IPR in view of patentability findings in two simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s claims obvious affirmed due to motivation to combine references and proper claim construction

Posted on January 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2071 (IPRs 2018-01684) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2071.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886454.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious affirmed as substantial evidence supported the motivation to … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR decisions finding Sanofi’s injector claims obvious due to lack of written description in priority document affirmed

Posted on January 24, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2066, -2068-9 (IPRs 2018-01679-80, -82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2066.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious because priority application does not provide … Continue reading →

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

Intel had Article III standing for appeal; Board IPR obviousness decision reversed as Intel showed motivation to combine under KSR

Posted on January 13, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1664 (IPR2018-01429) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1664.OPINION.12-28-2021_1885985.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES December 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board’s IPR claim construction affirmed but obviousness decision reversed due to “apparent reason to combine” the prior-art elements. Summary:  Intel appeal PTAB … Continue reading →

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