Category Archives: Obviousness

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1996 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH August 1, 2017 Brief summary: Board affirmance of obviousness rejections vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred “in dismissing properties of the claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to unpredictability and … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

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

Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1814, -1815, -1051 PROST, BRYSON, HUGHES July 26, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of obviousness following inter partes reexamination affirmed (e.g., “absolute predictability” not required, no teaching away). Summary: Soft Gel appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision invalidating … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Reexamination | Leave a comment

HTC Corporation et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC

Docket No. 2016-1858 DYK, REYNA, TARANTO July 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB rejection of IPR challenge affirmed based on claim construction (e.g., “[t]he separate naming of two structures in [a] claim strongly implies that the named entities are not … Continue reading

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

Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-2066 (several others) NEWMAN, MAYER, O’MALLEY July 17, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision that claims related to Millenium’s Velcade® are invalid for obviousness vacated and remanded. Summary: Millenium appealed DC decision that claims 20, 31, 49 and 53 … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A.

Docket No. 2016-1769 (IPR2914-01244) DYK, MOORE, REYNA June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Board obviousness decision based on reasoning adopted from Geox’s arguments affirmed. The FC panel also explained that “[t]he Board was not required to limit its motivation to combine … Continue reading

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

IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1474 (PTAB No. 95/001,192) PROST, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 7, 2017 Brief summary: Board’s claim construction of means-plus-function claims (the Board did not ““look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure”) and conclusions … Continue reading

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