Category Archives: Obviousness-Teaching Away

IPR decision finding Anacor’s KERYDIN® patents invalid for obviousness affirmed

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2019-2264-2267 (IPR2018-00168-00171, -01358-01361) PROST, NEWMAN (D), HUGHES August 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: IPR decisions finding Anacor’s tavaborole (5%) (KERYDIN®) patents invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., “concentration is a result-effective variable”). … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for insufficient explanation

Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., et al. Docket No. 2019-1467, -1468 (IPR2017-01409-10, -01736-7, IPR2018-00338-9) MOORE, CHEN, STOLL July 31, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as Board’s explanation was not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”. … Continue reading

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

Non-obviousness finding for Relistor® OB-listed formulation patent reversed due to structural and functional similarity to prior art compounds

Valeant Pharm. Int., Salix Pharm., Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., et al., Actavis LLC Docket No. 2018-2097 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of non-obviousness of OB formulation patent reversed and remanded … Continue reading

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

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed, TQ Delta had “opportunity to be heard”

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC Docket No. 2018-1799 (IPR2016-01470) NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding TQ Delta’s communications systems claims obvious affirmed. Summary: TQ Delta appealed Board IPR Final Written Decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

USPTO IPR claim construction and obviousness determinations for network communications claims affirmed

Bradium Technologies LLC v. Andre Iancu (USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2017-257, -2580 (IPR2016-00448, -00449) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN May 13, 2019 Brief summary: Board claim construction and obviousness determinations affirmed (e.g., no “clear and unambiguous definition limiting the term to only … Continue reading

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

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc.

IPR2017-02131 U.S. Pat. No. 9,492,559 B2 March 13, 2019 Brief summary: Board FWD found that the challenged claims relating to Pfizer’s Prevnar(TM) 13 vaccine were shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable for obviousness. Summary: The Board … Continue reading

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

Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd. v. Pronova Biopharm Norge AS

Docket No. 2017-2620 (US 9,447,360) Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00033 Final Written Decision (January 16, 2019) Brief summary: Board PGR decision finding claims 1-21 and 26 of Nippon’s fish oil-related claims unpatentable for indefiniteness, anticipation and obviousness affirmed (claims 22-25 were cancelled). … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

In Re: Copaxone Consolidated Cases / Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1575 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding Teva/Yeda’s patents relating to COPAXONE® invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva (Yeda) appealed DC decision (regarding five consolidated cases) invalidating US 8,232,250; 8,399,413; 8,969,302; and 9,155,776 … Continue reading

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

Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. / Alkermes Pharma v. Roxane / Mylan / Teva (“Defendants”)

Docket No. 2017-2078, -2134 NEWMAN (D), DYK, TARANTO September 10, 2018 Brief summary: DC invalidation of four Orange Book (“OB”) patents relating to Acorda’s Ampyra® product for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Acorda appealed DC finding that the claims of its four … Continue reading

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