Category Archives: Method claims

DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from Orange Book affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2023-1186 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1186.OPINION.2-24-2023_2085825.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, TARANTO February 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from OB affirmed. Summary:  Jazz appealed DC grant of an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Injunction, Method claims | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms DC obviousness and non-infringement findings regarding Genentech’s Esbriet® patents

Posted on January 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc., Intermune, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., LEK Pharmaceuticals, D.D. Docket No. 2022-1595 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1595.OPINION.12-22-2022_2052253.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, PROST December 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings that Genetech’s disputed Esbriet® patents are invalid for obviousness and not infringed by Sandoz’s ANDA … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading →

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

ITC decision of non-infringement of functional/capability-type computer claims affirmed; decision as to expired patent found moot

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

INVT SPE LLC v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC), HTC America, Inc. et al. (Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1903 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1903.OPINION.8-31-2022_1997811.pdf) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN August 31, 2022 Brief Summary:   ITC decision finding no infringement of functional computer claims affirmed; decision regarding expired … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Functional limitations, Importation, International Trade Commission, Method claims, Software | Leave a comment

DC decision of no infringement by Eagle’s ANDA specification and denial of DJ affirmed

Posted on August 19, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Eagle Pharmceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2342 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2342.OPINION.8-18-2022_1993064.pdf) MOORE, PROST, HUGHES August 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC finding of no infringement under 271(e)(2) affirmed based on Eagle’s ANDA specification to which Eagle is bound, … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Safe Harbor, FDA exemptions (271(e)(1)) | Leave a comment

DC finding of Stanford’s organ rejection detection claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed

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

CareDx, Inc. (Stanford Univ.) v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. Docket Nos. 2022-1027-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1027.OPINION.7-18-2022_1979207.pdf) LOURIE, BRYSON, HUGHES July 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   Stanford’s claims to detecting organ rejection found ineligible under section 101 (e.g., “applying standard techniques in … Continue reading →

Posted in Method claims, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability) | 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

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 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