Category Archives: Medical Devices

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success)

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

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1995, -1997 (IPR2020-00050, -00051) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1995.OPINION.5-23-2022_1955050.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), REYNA, HUGHES May 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board IPR final written … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (analogous art, motivation to combine)

Posted on May 31, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ethicon LLC and Cilag GmbH Int. (“Ethicon”) v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1601 (IPR2019-00991) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1601.OPINION.5-19-2022_1953841.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, STOLL May 19, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Medical Devices, Obviousness | 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

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Docket No. 2021-1864 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1864.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934126.pdf) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of indefiniteness reversed, but induced infringement, exclusion of expert witness report and damages findings affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Medical Devices, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties, Written description | Leave a comment

Board design patent anticipation decision reversed as prior art is to an art tool while design patent claim is “limited to lip implants”

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

In Re:  Surigisil, LLP et al. Docket No. 2020-1940 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1940.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843781.pdf) MOORE, NEWMAN, O’MALLEY October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding design patent claim anticipated by art tool prior art reversed (e.g., “the claim is limited to lip implants and … Continue reading →

Posted in Design Patents, Medical Devices | Leave a comment