Category Archives: Obviousness

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

“Substantial risk of future infringement” provides standing for IPR appeal; non-obviousness conclusion vacated and remanded

General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation Docket No. 2019-1319 (IPR2017-00428) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1319.OPINION.12-28-2020_1707556.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES December 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  GE found to have standing due to a substantial risk of future infringement”; Board finding of no obviousness vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC claim construction reversed; joined party in IPR can raise new obviousness arguments; no improper broadening during reissue

Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al. Docket No. 2018-2338-39, -2395-96 PROST, NEWMAN, BRYSON September 24, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction affirmed and reversed (“ordinary meaning”); joinder rule did not prevent HP from raising new obviousness arguments that … Continue reading

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

IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed (insufficient evidence of nexus between claims and license agreements)

Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1732, -1752 (IPR2017-01669, -02044 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 8, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed (e.g., insufficient evidence nexus between claims and secondary considerations (license agreements)). Summary: … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Anacor’s KERYDIN® patents invalid for obviousness affirmed

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2019-2264-2267 (IPR2018-00168-00171, -01358-01361) PROST, NEWMAN (D), HUGHES August 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: IPR decisions finding Anacor’s tavaborole (5%) (KERYDIN®) patents invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., “concentration is a result-effective variable”). … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for insufficient explanation

Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., et al. Docket No. 2019-1467, -1468 (IPR2017-01409-10, -01736-7, IPR2018-00338-9) MOORE, CHEN, STOLL July 31, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as Board’s explanation was not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”. … Continue reading

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

DC decision of no invalidity including no common ownership regarding double-patenting affirmed

Immunex Corporation, Amgen Manuf., Ltd., Hoffman La-Roche Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. Docket No. 2020-1037 O’MALLEY, REYNA (D), CHEN July 1, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of no invalidity for obviousness-type double-patenting (no common ownership), written description or obviousness … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decision based on common sense modification of prior art affirmed

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1935, -1936 (IPR2017-01275, -01276) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES June 26, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision based in part on common sense affirmed. Summary: B/E appealed Board final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness and non-obviousness findings affirmed (e.g,. the Board “explained why”)

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., Andrei Iancu (USPTO, intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1582, -1635 (IPR2017-01812, -01920) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR final written decisions finding certain of Boston’s claim unpatentable for obviousness and … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision affirmed; Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d)

ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC Docket No. 2019-1659 (IPR2019-02197) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES May 19, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed. Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d). Summary: ESIP appealed Board IPR decision … Continue reading

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