Category Archives: Obviousness

Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Docket No. 2020-2334-40 (IPR2019-00578-82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2334.OPINION.5-24-2022_1955796.pdf) (Non-Precedential) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO May 24, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed. Summary: Cornell appealed USPTO Board final written decisions … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success)

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1995, -1997 (IPR2020-00050, -00051) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1995.OPINION.5-23-2022_1955050.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), REYNA, HUGHES May 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board IPR final written … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Medical Devices, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (analogous art, motivation to combine)

Ethicon LLC and Cilag GmbH Int. (“Ethicon”) v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1601 (IPR2019-00991) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1601.OPINION.5-19-2022_1953841.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, STOLL May 19, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Medical Devices, Obviousness | 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

Board IPR obviousness decision reversed due to erroneous claim construction

Amgen Inc. et al. v. USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-2171 (IPR2016-01542) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2171.OPINION.4-14-2022_1936036.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, SCHALL, STOLL April 14, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision reversed due to erroneous claim construction (“[a] straightforward reading of the claim language”, “the … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decision reversed, another affirmed along with claim construction decisions

Surgalign Spine Technologies, Inc. et al. v. LifeNet Health Docket No. 2021-1117-18, -1236 (IPR2019-00569, -00570) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1117.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934157.pdf) (Non-Precedential) NEWMAN (D), SCHALL, PROST April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   IPR obviousness decision reversed, claim construction affirmed, other no obviousness decision affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ for indefiniteness and obviousness of Immunogen’s claims vacated and remanded

Immunogen, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1939 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1939.OPINION.3-25-2022_1926731.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 25, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ that Immunogen’s pending claims are indefinite and obvious vacated and remanded as factual findings not undisputed. Summary:  Immunogen … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Incorporation by Reference, Indefiniteness, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative limitation need not be disclosed by prior art)

Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2331 (IPR2019-00207, -01095 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2331.OPINION.3-14-2022_1920940.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM March 14, 2022 Brief Summary:  Board IPR FWD finding Almirall’s method of treatment claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “overlapping ranges”, negative … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Negative Limitations, Obviousness | 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

Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s claims obvious affirmed due to motivation to combine references and proper claim construction

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2071 (IPRs 2018-01684) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2071.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886454.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious affirmed as substantial evidence supported the motivation to … Continue reading

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