Category Archives: IPR

Board construction of “wherein” clause affirmed; remanded for review of non-instituted grounds

Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP Docket Nos. 2018-1812 (IPR2016-01502) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA October 29, 2019 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction of the “wherein” clause affirmed; decision remanded for consideration of non-instituted grounds. Summary: Alere appealed Board IPR final … Continue reading

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

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board decision finding Google did not show anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Google LLC v. Kininklijke Philips, N.V. Docket Nos. 2018-2213 (IPR2017-00437) Moore, Bryson, Chen October 23, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision that Google did not show the challenged claims to be anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary: Google appealed Board … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB denies institution of IPR against PureCircle’s steviol process claims

Sweegen, Inv. v. PureCircle USA Inc., et al. IPR2019-01017 (US 9,243,273B2) October 24, 2019 Decision not to institute IPR Brief Summary: Petition for IPR denied as PTAB determined Sweegen did not present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness or … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Priority, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB IPR decision finding OSI’s Tarceva® patent obvious reversed (e.g., “unpredictability in cancer treatment generally”, reasonable expectation of success only with hindsight)

OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1925 (IPR2016-01284) NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 4, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s IPR decision holding OSI’s OB ‘221 patent obvious reversed (e.g., the PTAB “misinterpreted the asserted references”, “NSCLC treatment was … Continue reading

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

IPR nonobviousness decision affirmed in part because secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point of novelty”

Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC Docket No. 2018-1596 (IPR2016-01435) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL September 12, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR holding of nonobviousness affirmed (no motivation to combine, secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point … Continue reading

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

Board properly decided to deny institution and dismiss IPRs on SAS remand instead of instituting on all grounds

BioDelivery Sciences Int., Inc. v. Aquesitive Therapeutics, Inc., FKA Monsol Rx, LLC Docket No. 2019-1643-45 (IPR2015-00165, -00168, -00169) NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, REYNA (Order) August 26, 2019 Brief Summary: On remand under SAS after instituting IPRs on less than all the … Continue reading

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