Category Archives: Method claims

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Docket No. 2019-2171 (IPR2016-01542) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2171.OPINION.4-14-2022_1936036.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, SCHALL, STOLL April 14, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision reversed due to erroneous claim construction (“[a] straightforward reading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

Persion’s Zohydro ER claims invalid for obviousness and lack of written description (“inherently result in the claimed [PK] parameters”, functional limitations too broad)

Posted on January 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2361 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN December 27, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of invalidity of Persion’s hepatic insufficiency claims related to Zohydro ER for obviousness and no WD affirmed. Summary: Persion … Continue reading →

Posted in Functional limitations, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Uncategorized, Written description | 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)

Posted on October 7, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Lilly’s Orange Book ‘209 patent regarding administration of pemetrexed not literally infringed, but infringed under DOE

Posted on August 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Hospira, Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Docket No. 2018-2126, -2127, -2128 LOURIE, MOORE, TARANTO August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC literal infringement decision reversed, but infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary: Hospira and Dr. Reddy’s (DRL) appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Sequenom, Inc.

Posted on June 15, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144 REYNA, LINN (C), WALLACH June 12, 2015 Update:  Petition for Rehearing en banc denied 12/2/15; Cert. denied 6/27/16 Brief Summary: Method claims for amplifying and detecting fetal DNA in maternal serum or plasma deemed patent ineligible … Continue reading →

Posted in Method claims, Patentability | Leave a comment

Kaneka Corporation v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. et al.

Posted on June 11, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1373, -1399 NEWMAN, REYNA, HUGHES June 10, 2015 Brief Summary: DC claim construction correct on some points but incorrect on others (“inconsistent with the intrinsic record”, steps of claims not limited to particular order, preamble “comprises” does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Method claims, Preamble | Leave a comment

Mformation Technologies, Inc. et al. (“MT”) and Research In Motion Limited et al. (“Blackberry”)

Posted on August 26, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1679, 2013-1123 PROST, SCHALL, HUGHES August 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Post-verdict DC grant of JMOL did not change claim construction but “at most clarified its previous instruction that was already present in the jury instructions.” Steps of method … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Method claims | Leave a comment