Category Archives: Priority

Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. (“LAB”) V. Eli Lilly and Company

Docket No. 2016-1518 (IPR2014-00752) NEWMAN, BRYSON, MOORE February 28, 2017 Brief Summary: Board conclusion of obviousness vacated and remanded for determination of whether there was an “apparent reason to combine the prior art references” in view of correct claim construction. … Continue reading

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

MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1243 (IPR2014-00538) NEWMAN, LOURIE, O’MALLEY (D) February 13, 2017 Brief Summary: Board claim construction based in part on deletion of statement from provisional application incorporated by reference in the patent and anticipation conclusion affirmed. Summary: MPHJ appealed Board … Continue reading

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

Abbott GmbH & Co. KG v. Yeda Res. Develop. Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2015-1662 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES September 20, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision that Abbott’s “purified and isolated TNF[alpha]-binding protein” claimed in US 5,344,915 is inherently disclosed by a German priority document affirmed. Summary: Yeda appealed 2008 and 2015 DC … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

EnOcean GmbH v. Face International Corp.

Docket No. 2012-1645 Panel TBD January 31, 2014 Brief Summary: Board decision that claim term “receiver” did not invoke § 112, ¶ 6 because “those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” Sufficient structure … Continue reading

Posted in Means-plus-function, Priority | Leave a comment

Medtronic CoreValve LLC et al. v. Edwards LifeSciences Corp., et al.

Docket No. 2013-1117 PROST, PLAGER, TARANTO January 22, 2014 Brief Summary: Patent found anticipated by earlier priority application because priority was not correctly claimed under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (did not recite each and every intervening application). Summary: Medtronic appealed … Continue reading

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

Santarus, Inc. et al. vs. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Docket No. 2010-1360, -1380 RADER, NEWMAN (C/D), MOORE September 4, 2012 Brief summary: Negative claim limitations may be supported where specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation; parent application of CIP may be prior art; teaching away must … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment