Category Archives: Obviousness

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2262.OPINION.11-16-2022_2034079.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, STARK November 16, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed.  FC panel explains that “a disclaimer in … Continue reading

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

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading

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

IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. Docket No. 2021-2121 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2121.OPINION.9-29-2022_2010851.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Mylan did not show Merck’s DP-IV claims invalid for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed

Best Medical Int., Inc. v. Elekta Inc. Docket No. 2021-2099, -2100 (IPR2020-0070-72) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2099.OPINION.8-26-2022_1996028.pdf) HUGHES, LINN, STOLL August 26, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed. Summary:  BMI appealed two IPR Board decisions finding … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction

TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Limited, et al. Docket No. 2021-2069-70, 2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction. Summary:  TalexMedical appealed … Continue reading

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

DC finding Actavis did not show Tris’ liquid formulation/blood concentration claims obvious affirmed

Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1495 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1495.OPINION.7-7-2022_1974736.pdf) (Non-precedential) MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES July 7, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decision following remand finding Actavis did not show Tris’ claims obvious affirmed (e.g., “unexpected result”, long-felt unmet … Continue reading

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

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