Category Archives: IPR

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Google LLC v. Kininklijke Philips, N.V. Docket Nos. 2018-2213 (IPR2017-00437) Moore, Bryson, Chen October 23, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision that Google did not show the challenged claims to be anticipated or obvious affirmed.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

Board IPR decision vacated and remanded for erroneous claim construction; negative limitation not disclosed by prior art.

WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1617 (IPR2016-01238) NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL August 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision finding WAG’s claims invalid for anticipation reversed due to erroneous claim construction (e.g., the definition “comes … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Negative Limitations, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

APA violation and unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene); Board IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1854 (IPR2016-00918) DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: Anthrex’s due process and constitutional challenges to IPR rejected; Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed. … Continue reading

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