Category Archives: Obviousness-Teaching Away

Arctic Cat Inv. V. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1475 MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL December 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of BRP’s JMOL that the asserted claims would have been obvious and that the royalty, willfulness and trebling of damages were improper affirmed. Patent marking issue vacated … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.

IPR2016-01027 and -28 (US 9,060,976 B2) Final Written Decisions November 3, 2017 Brief summary: Two separate PTAB FWDs found claim 1 of Purdue’s ‘976 patent obviousness based on different combinations of prior art. Summary: These Final Written Decisions (FWDs) relate … Continue reading

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

Univ. of Maryland Biotechnology Inst. V. Presens Precision Sensing GmbH

Docket No. 2016-2745, 2017-1057 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY November 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s conclusion of obviousness affirmed (e.g., no “change in…basic principles” of operation of prior art vessels and no teaching away). Summary: Maryland appealed from PTAB decision after … Continue reading

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

Bayer Pharma AG, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2169 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY November 1, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision of obviousness reversed (e.g., teaching away inquiry “does not focus on whether” the skilled artisan “would have merely favored one disclosed option over another disclosed option”). Summary: … Continue reading

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

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Company, LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-2583 DYK, LINN, HUGHES October 19, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision that Merck’s claims relating to NuvaRing® reversed and remanded (e.g., “the only way to arrive at the hypothetical ring is by using the ‘581 patent as … Continue reading

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

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