Category Archives: Negative Limitations

Novartis appeals to SCOTUS rehearing of FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on January 25, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 24, 2022 Second Update (January 24, 2023): Novartis petitioned SCOTUS with two questions presented:  1) Whether … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Negative Limitations, U.S. Supreme Court, Written description | Leave a comment

SCOTUS denies Novartis’ petition for certiorari regarding FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on June 22, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) Original Panel:  MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY (January 3, 2022) Rehearing Panel:  MOORE, LINN (D), HUGHES (June 21, 2022) Third Update (April … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Negative Limitations, 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

FC panel finds negative limitation sufficiently described, affirms DC finding of no invalidity

Posted on January 6, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 3, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC finding Novartis patent not invalid for lack of written description of … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

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

Posted on September 3, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com et al.

Posted on January 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1433 (IPR2015-01802) MOORE, SCHALL, STOLL January 9, 2019 Brief summary: Board’s reconsideration after FWD found not to violate AC’s due process since Board was obligated to consider all grounds and AC had an opportunity to respond. Summary: AC … Continue reading →

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

Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Case IPR2017-00731 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,441 B1) Decision Granting Request for Rehearing October 26, 2017 Brief summary: Petition for Rehearing granted as prior decision lacked of construction of the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative” which the Board … Continue reading →

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

LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corporation

Posted on September 20, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1549 PROST, REYNA, CHEN September 16, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision denying LifeCell’s motion for a new trail and JMOL following jury finding of infringement and no invalidity affirmed (based on DC’s claim construction). Summary: LifeCell appealed from … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Negative Limitations, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1719 (IPR2013-00067) CHEN, MAYER, STOLL February 11, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision denying Nike’s motion to amend claims affirmed because it “failed to meet its burden of establishing patentability of substitute claims 47-50”; obviousness decision vacated since “Board … Continue reading →

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

Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.

Posted on November 30, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2015-1179 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN November 13, 2015 Brief Summary:  PTO finding that negative limitation supported by specification lacking explicit disclaimer affirmed, although “in all cases, a patentee may [not] arbitrarily dissect its invention by amending the claims in … Continue reading →

Posted in Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment