Category Archives: Obviousness (Secondary Considerations)

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 findings of obviousness of certain claims affirmed and others vacated based on secondary considerations

Posted on December 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arius Two, Inc., Biodelivery Sci. Int., Inc. v. Alvogen PB Res. & Develop. LLC, et al. Docket No. 2022-1394, -1449 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1394.OPINION.12-21-2022_2051391.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, CLEVENGER, CUNNINGHAM December 21, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC obviousness findings for two patents affirmed; obviousness of … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Prosecution History Estoppel | 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Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written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

IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

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

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. Docket No. 2021-2121 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2121.OPINION.9-29-2022_2010851.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction

Posted on August 4, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Limited, et al. Docket No. 2021-2069-70, 2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction. Summary:  TalexMedical appealed … Continue reading →

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

DC finding Actavis did not show Tris’ liquid formulation/blood concentration claims obvious affirmed

Posted on July 20, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1495 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1495.OPINION.7-7-2022_1974736.pdf) (Non-precedential) MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES July 7, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decision following remand finding Actavis did not show Tris’ claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “unexpected result”, long-felt unmet … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away | 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

IPR decision finding obviousness and denying entry of amended claims for lack of written description affirmed

Posted on March 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation Docket No. 2021-1561 (IPR2019-01566) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1561.OPINION.3-10-2022_1919730.pdf) LOURIE, HUGHES, STOLL March 10, 2022 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR FWD finding parachute systems claims obvious and denial of entry of amended claims for lacking written description affirmed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Written description | Leave a comment

DC decision finding Adapt’s naloxone formulations obvious affirmed

Posted on February 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Adapt Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2020-2106 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2106.OPINION.2-10-2022_1906561.pdf) NEWMAN (D), PROST, STOLL February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding Adapt’s naloxone formulations obvious affirmed. Summary:  Adapt appealed DC final judgment finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly considering the commercial sales evidence

Posted on July 23, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd. et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1289, -1290 (IPR2018-00992, -00993) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1289.OPINION.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA July 22, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board obviousness IPR decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment