Category Archives: Obviousness

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. (DRL), Actavis/Watson, Teva, Par, Intelgenx, Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC Docket Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177 Newman, Mayer (D), Lourie July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings that Invidior … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board IPR decision invalidating design patents for obviousness

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1259-60 (IPR2016-00816, -00826) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN July 2, 2019 Brief summary:  Board IPR decision of invalidity of Kolcraft’s design patents affirmed as evidence regarding inventor’s date of conception was uncorroborated. … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Design Patents, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC findings of infringement and validity of one UCB rotigotine patent and invalidity of another as anticipated by use in a single patient in a clinical trial affirmed

UCB, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1397, -1453 TARANTO, SCHALL, CHEN June 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions finding that UCB’s ‘434 patent was infringed under DOE and not invalid and UCB’s ‘414 patent … Continue reading

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

Time bar not triggered by change in real party in interest, Board claim construction/ invalidity determinations of Mayne’s claims affirmed

Mayne Pharma Int. v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1593 (IPR2016-01186) LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY June 21, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR time bar and claim construction/invalidity determinations affirmed. Summary: Mayne appealed the USPTO’s (Board’s) IPR … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness finding vacated for erroneous motivaton to combine and reasonable expectation of success determinations

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. UUSI, LLC, DBA NARTRON Docket No. 2018-1310 (IPR2016-00908) NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK June 18, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded (e.g., “improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding mesalamine method claims obvious affirmed, Salix’s appeal of DC non-infringment holding dismissed

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v. Generico, LLC et al., Salix Pharm. v. Mylan Pharm. Docket 2017-2312 (IPR2016-00297, -01386, -01409); 2017-2636, 2018-1320 LOURIE, LINN, WALLACH June 12, 2019 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s IPR obviousness determination affirmed and Salix’s appeal of DC … Continue reading

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