Category Archives: Obviousness

Board finding of no obviousness reversed under “known-technique” motivation to combine rationale

Posted on March 14, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG Docket No. 2022-1037 (IPR 2020-00518) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1037.OPINION.3-13-2023_2093578.pdf) NEWMAN, POST, HUGHES March 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Intel did not show PACT’s claims unpatentable for obviousness reversed as prior art shows … Continue reading →

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

IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded for “fundamental legal error in defining the combination it was evaluating”

Posted on March 7, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC Docket No. 2022-1083 (IPR-2020-00558) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1083.OPINION.3-1-2023_2088157.pdf) (Non-Precedential) NEWMAN, REYNA, TARANTO March 1, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR FWD finding no obviousness vacated and remanded for “fundamental legal error in defining the combination it was evaluating”. … Continue reading →

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

Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LKQ Corporation, et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC Docket No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1253.OPINION.1-20-2023_2066551.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STARK January 20, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary:  LKQ appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms DC obviousness and non-infringement findings regarding Genentech’s Esbriet® patents

Posted on January 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc., Intermune, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., LEK Pharmaceuticals, D.D. Docket No. 2022-1595 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1595.OPINION.12-22-2022_2052253.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, PROST December 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings that Genetech’s disputed Esbriet® patents are invalid for obviousness and not infringed by Sandoz’s ANDA … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms Board IPR decisions finding P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims obvious

Posted on January 10, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

P Tech, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1102, -1115 (IPR-2020-00649-50) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1102.OPINION.12-15-2022_2048477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, CUNNINGHAM December 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions of obviousness of P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims affirmed. Summary:  P Tech appealed … Continue reading →

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

DC findings of obviousness of certain claims affirmed and others vacated based on secondary considerations

Posted on December 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arius Two, Inc., Biodelivery Sci. Int., Inc. v. Alvogen PB Res. & Develop. LLC, et al. Docket No. 2022-1394, -1449 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1394.OPINION.12-21-2022_2051391.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, CLEVENGER, CUNNINGHAM December 21, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC obviousness findings for two patents affirmed; obviousness of … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

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

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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”

Posted on November 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on October 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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