Category Archives: Inventorship

DC finding that Horizon’s OB patents are obvious and/or not infringed affirmed

Posted on November 17, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Docket No. 2021-1480 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1480.OPINION.11-16-2021_1865455.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES November 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC refusal to change inventorship, finding of obviousness and no infringement of Horizon’s patents affirmed. Summary:  Horizon appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment

ITC findings that Bio-Rad infringed and does not co-own 10X patents affirmed

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 10X Genomics Inc. Docket No. 2020-1785 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1785.OPINION.4-29-2021_1770917.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC infringement and no co-ownership findings affirmed. Summary:  Bio-Rad appealed International Trade Commission (ITC) decision finding infringement and … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC claim construction affirmed; refusal to correct inventorship vacated/remanded (“AIA did not narrow the meaning of ‘error’”)

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

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2015, -2387 PROST, REYNA, STOLL August 28, 2020 Brief Summary: DC claim construction affirmed; refusal to allow Egenera to correct inventorship vacated/remanded (“AIA did not narrow the meaning of ‘error’”). Summary: Egenera … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Claim Construction, Inventorship | Leave a comment

DC decision adding Dana Farber/GI (Pfizer) inventors to Ono/BMS anti-PD1 patents affirmed

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

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharm. Co., et al. (Bristol-Myers Squibb) Docket No. 2019-2050 NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL July 14, 2020 Brief Summary: DC order to add Dana Farber and GI/Pfizer inventors to the Ono/BMS relating to the use of … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Dana-Farber and Genetic Institute researchers named co-inventors on the “Honjo patents” encompassing methods for treating cancer using anti-PD1 antibodies including BMS’s Opdivo® (nivolumab)

Posted on May 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. Civil Action No. 15-13443-PBS U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts May 17, 2019 Brief summary: DC determines Dana-Farber and Genetics Institute researchers to be co-inventors on the Honjo patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment

CODA Development S.R.O. et al. and Frantisek Hrabal (“Coda”) v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al.

Posted on February 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1028 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES February 22, 2019 Brief summary: DC dismissal of Coda’s complaint seeking correction of inventorship (§ 256) of several Goodyear patents and applications, and trade secret misappropriation claims as time barred, was vacated and remanded. … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship, Trade Secret | Leave a comment

Galen J. Suppes v. Kattesh V. Katti, et al.

Posted on October 4, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1142 NEWMAN, WALLCH, CHEN October 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC dismissal of Mr. Suppes complaint against university employer for declining to file patent applications for certain of his ideas and not allowing him to do so without … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Inventorship | Leave a comment

CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc. v. Neovasc Inc. et al.

Posted on September 6, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1302, -1513 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO September 1, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision finding that CardiAQ’a employees should have been named inventors on Neovasc’s patents and trade secret misappropriation. Summary: Neovasc appealed DC on finding that CardiAQ’a employees … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Inventorship, Lost Profits, Trade Secret | Leave a comment

University of Utah v. Max-Planck et al.

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

Docket No. 2016-1336 O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH March 23, 2017 Brief Summary: DC finding that this case was not “exceptional” under § 285 and thus denying Max-Planck’s motion for attorney fees of about $8 million affirmed since there is no “precise … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Insitutional LLC et al.

Posted on January 27, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1155, -1259 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO January 26, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that patented invention was not derived from “someone at the FDA” or shown to obvious affirmed. Summary: Mylan appealed DC rejection of its invalidity assertions regarding … Continue reading →

Posted in Derivation of Invention, Inventorship, Obviousness | Leave a comment