Category Archives: Obviousness

FC panel reverses IPR finding of no obviousness and vacates decision as to dependent claims that the Board did not discuss separately

Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC Docket No. 2019-1927 (IPR2017-02125) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1927.OPINION.2-18-2021_1735559.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA February 18, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as to independent claims and vacated the decision as to the dependent claims (e.g., … Continue reading

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

FC panel affirms DC decision that Torrent did not show obviousness of Takeda’s algoliptin claims

Takeda Pharm. Co. et al. v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1552, -1598 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1552.OPINION.2-16-2021_1733600.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, MAYER, CHEN February 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC holding that Torrent did not show Takeda’s claims related to algoliptin obvious affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR FWD obviousness findings affirmed (e.g., no teaching away)

Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2302-5, -2452 (IPR2019-00291, -00318, -00322, -00385, -00797) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2302.OPINION.2-1-2021_1726127.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA February 1, 2021 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decisions affirmed (e.g., no teaching away). Summary:  Columbia appealed two IPR final written decisions … Continue reading

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

Board IPR FWD remanded regarding reasonable expectation of success

KeyNetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1271 (IPR2018-00986) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1271.OPINION.1-27-2021_1723945.pdf) DYK, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY January 27, 2021 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary:  IPR final written decision remanded for finding on reasonable expectation of success (“The Board erred in assigning no burden … Continue reading

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

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 did not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”. … Continue reading

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