Category Archives: Obviousness-Teaching Away

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and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading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