Category Archives: Obviousness (Secondary Considerations)

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

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Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written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

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

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2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction.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

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FL, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1495 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1495.OPINION.7-7-2022_1974736.pdf) (Non-precedential) MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES July 7, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decision following remand finding Actavis did not show Tris’ claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “unexpected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

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

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

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

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

IPR decision finding Baxter’s claims nonobvious reversed due in part to erroneous claim construction

Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Baxter Corporation Englewood Docket No. 2020-1937 (IPR2019-00119) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1937.OPINION.5-28-2021_1784040.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK May 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision of no obviousness reversed based in part on erroneous claim construction. Summary:  Becton appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed (insufficient evidence of nexus between claims and license agreements)

Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1732, -1752 (IPR2017-01669, -02044 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 8, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed (e.g., insufficient evidence nexus between claims and secondary considerations (license agreements)). Summary: … Continue reading

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