Category Archives: Method claims

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

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

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.

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.

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”)

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