Category Archives: Obviousness

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

APA violation and unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene); Board IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1854 (IPR2016-00918) DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: Anthrex’s due process and constitutional challenges to IPR rejected; Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed. … Continue reading

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and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading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

Nalpropion’s naltrexone/bupropion claims found by FC panel not to lack written description (affirming DC) but invalid for obviousness (reversing DC)

Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1221 PROST, LOURIE, WALLACH August 15, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision of no invalidity for lack of WD affirmed, but decision of no obviousness reversed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC judgment … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms obviousness of Celgene’s claims and finds IPRs against pre-AIA patents not unconstitutional

Celgene Corp. v. Laura A. Peter (USPTO) Docket No. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (IPR2015-01096, -01102, -01103, -01092) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board obviousness determinations of Celgene’s thalidomide administration-related claims affirmed; arguments that IPRs are unconstitutional for … Continue reading

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

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | 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