Category Archives: Patent Prosecution

Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 ( 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

Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC et al. v. Michele K. Lee (Cadence Pharma., Intervenors)

Docket No. 2013-1206 PROST, NEWMAN, LINN March 26, 2015 Brief Summary: PTO patent application revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge under the APA. Summary: Exela petitioned the PTO to “reconsider and withdraw” its revival of a … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Patent Prosecution, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Docket No. 2014-1159 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES February 26, 2015 Brief Summary: PTO decision to reduce PTA due to the filing of a supplemental IDS after filed a response to a restriction requirement was reasonable. Summary: Gilead appealed DC decision regarding … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Patent Prosecution, Patent Term Extension | Leave a comment

Korean Patent Law Changes

Some interesting and potentially useful changes to the Korean Patent Act were recently outlined in a newsletter from Kim & Chang Intellectual Property ( Among these changes are: 1) Patent term adjustments: If registration of a patent is delayed more … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Prosecution | Leave a comment