Category Archives: Prosecution History Estoppel

DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”

Posted on March 18, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. OKI Data Americas, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1189.OPINION.2-10-2021_1730931.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, TARANTO February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”. Summary:  Infinity appealed DC indefiniteness finding regarding US Pat. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ of infringement to Lilly under DOE affirmed

Posted on December 31, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly And Company v. Apotex, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1328 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1328.OPINION.12-21-2020_1705369.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, STOLL December 21, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary:  Apotex appealed DC grant of Lilly’s motion for summary judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Claim construction reversed since DC excluded preferred embodiment and “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”

Posted on April 17, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1595, -1648 WALLACH, MAYER, STOLL April 10, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: FC panel reverses DC claim construction (e.g., cannot exclude preferred embodiment, “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”). Summary: Rembrandt … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2019-1263, -1265, -1267, -1270 IPRs 2017-00731, -01121, -02063, -00737, -01122, -01960 LOURIE, MOORE, WALLACH March 26, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction (e.g., “effective amount”), obviousness conclusion and denial of amendment … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Rejected claim construction proposal during IPR was not prosecution history estoppel, FC affirms infringement under DOE; second infringement decision reversed

Posted on March 27, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Galderma Labs., Nestle Skin Health S.A. et al. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC et al. Docket No. 2019-1021 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL March 25, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of infringement of certain claims affirmed as statements made in related IPR … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Infringement of analyte measurement device claims under DOE barred by prosecution history estoppel

Posted on November 25, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. et al. v. LifeScan, Inc. (Johnson and Johnson) Docket Nos. 2019-1163 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL November 22, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of no infringement under DOE affirmed due to prosecution history estoppel. Summary: Pharma … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lilly’s Orange Book ‘209 patent regarding administration of pemetrexed not literally infringed, but infringed under DOE

Posted on August 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Hospira, Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Docket No. 2018-2126, -2127, -2128 LOURIE, MOORE, TARANTO August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC literal infringement decision reversed, but infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary: Hospira and Dr. Reddy’s (DRL) appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC claim construction, written description, and finding of infringement by imported E. coli strains affirmed by Federal Circuit

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

Ajinomoto Co. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC) et al. Docket No. 2018-1590, -1629 (ITC No. 337-TA-1005) DYK (C/D), MOORE, TARANTO August 6, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction, written description, and finding that certain E. coli strains imported … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit reverses DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”)

Posted on May 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc. Docket No. 2017-2423 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES May 21, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ based on § 102(b) on-sale bar defense (e.g., inventor declarations not “sham affidavits”) reversed. Summary: Quest appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment