Category Archives: Obviousness

Board decision finding Google did not show anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Google LLC v. Kininklijke Philips, N.V. Docket Nos. 2018-2213 (IPR2017-00437) Moore, Bryson, Chen October 23, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision that Google did not show the challenged claims to be anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary: Google appealed Board … Continue reading

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

PTAB denies institution of IPR against PureCircle’s steviol process claims

Sweegen, Inv. v. PureCircle USA Inc., et al. IPR2019-01017 (US 9,243,273B2) October 24, 2019 Decision not to institute IPR Brief Summary: Petition for IPR denied as PTAB determined Sweegen did not present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness or … Continue reading

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

PTAB anticipation/obviousness decision reversed since prior art did not disclose the claimed device “arranged as claimed”

In Re: Stepen Brian Gates, Jeremy Black Docket No. 2018-2331 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL October 16, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB appeal decision affirming the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections reversed and remanded since the prior art did not disclose the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB obviousness decision vacated as being improperly based on inherency

Knauf Insulation, Inc. et al. v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency. Summary: Knauf appealed PTAB’s inter partes … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Horizon’s OB ‘913 claim 12 survives obviousness challenge (Pennsaid® for osteoarthritis)

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB IPR decision finding OSI’s Tarceva® patent obvious reversed (e.g., “unpredictability in cancer treatment generally”, reasonable expectation of success only with hindsight)

OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1925 (IPR2016-01284) NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 4, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s IPR decision holding OSI’s OB ‘221 patent obvious reversed (e.g., the PTAB “misinterpreted the asserted references”, “NSCLC treatment was … Continue reading

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

IPR nonobviousness decision affirmed in part because secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point of novelty”

Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC Docket No. 2018-1596 (IPR2016-01435) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL September 12, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR holding of nonobviousness affirmed (no motivation to combine, secondary evidence does not need to be “precisely limited to the point … Continue reading

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