Category Archives: Post-grant review

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No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1253.OPINION.1-20-2023_2066551.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STARK January 20, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed.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

Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant

Posted on November 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2152 (PGR2017-00012) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for error in disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant. Summary: Liqwd appealed Board post-grant review (PGR) decision … Continue reading →

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

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

Posted on May 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Posted on January 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

Posted on June 25, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

PGR2017-00008 (US 9,283,239 B2) Final Written Decision June 22, 2018 Brief summary: FWD decision following PGR finding AB’s method of treatment claims invalid for lack of written description (claimed dosage range not described). Summary: Grünenthal’s petition for post-grant review (PGR) … Continue reading →

Posted in Post-grant review, Written description | 1 Comment

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

Posted on May 15, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1487 (PGR2015-00011) O’MALLEY, SCHALL (D), WALLACH May 2, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB FWD after PRG of Paragon’s patent relating to the use of chirally pure R-phenylephrine in ophthalmic compositions reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. Summary: Altaire appealed PTAB final … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Posted on August 31, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

Posted on February 16, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

PGR2015-00011 (US 8,859,623 B1) Post-Grant Review Decision November 14, 2016 Brief Summary: Preamble found not to limit the claim; petition for PGR found not to show unpatentability of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: The grounds for … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Post-grant review, Preamble | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC (Petitioner; “CAD”) v. Pozen Inc. (Patent Owner)

Posted on December 21, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2015-01344 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,858,996 B2) December 17, 2015 Brief Summary: CAD’s Petition alleging obviousness or anticipation denied because, e.g., the cited art “would [not] have given one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to formulate a tablet … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness, Post-grant review, Written description | Leave a comment

Merck & CIE v. Gnosis S.P.A. et al.

Posted on December 18, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2014-1779 NEWMAN(D), PLAGER, HUGHES December 17, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB decision of obviousness affirmed (motivation derived from prior art, no nexus shown). Judge Newman’s dissent argues post-grant review improperly allows “the petitioner [to] provide invalidity by no more … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment