Category Archives: Obviousness-Teaching Away

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1814, -1815, -1051 PROST, BRYSON, HUGHES July 26, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of obviousness following inter partes reexamination affirmed (e.g., “absolute predictability” not required, no teaching away). Summary: Soft Gel appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision invalidating … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-2066 (several others) NEWMAN, MAYER, O’MALLEY July 17, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision that claims related to Millenium’s Velcade® are invalid for obviousness vacated and remanded. Summary: Millenium appealed DC decision that claims 20, 31, 49 and 53 … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

J Kyle Bass et al. (Petitioner) v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Patent Owner)

IPR2016-00254 U.S. Pat. No. 8,476,010B2 Final Written Decision (June 5, 2017) Brief Summary: Board found challenged claims of US 8,476,010B2 relating to formulations of the anesthetic propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) stored in containers having nonreactive, inert closures (sold as Diprivan) invalid for … Continue reading

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

Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

IPR2016-00172 U.S. Pat. No. 8,889,135B2 May 17, 2017 Final Written Decision (IPR granted May 17, 2016) Update: See summary of May 16, 2017 FWD finding claims 1-5 unpatenable. See also July 6, 2017 FWD in IPR2016-00408 and IPR2016-00409 (both requested … Continue reading

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

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Michele K. Lee (USPTO)

Docket No. 2015-2095 PROST, DYK, STOLL (D) May 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ to PTO that claims to NK cell immunotherapy would have been obvious affirmed (“no material dispute that the combination…used here produced the invention … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Michael Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1755 (IPR2014-01188) PROST, LOURIE, MOORE March 7, 2017 Brief Summary: PTAB’s finding of no teaching away “supported by substantial evidence” (e.g., “nothing in either reference indicates that descriptive text would render Finseth’s rollover area inoperative for its intended … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment