Category Archives: Public Accessibility

DC invalidation of Minerva’s claims for public use at scientific meeting affirmed

Posted on February 17, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Minvera Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC Docket No. 2021-2246 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2246.OPINION.2-15-2023_2081255.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL February 15, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding of Minverva’s claims invalid for public use at a scientific meeting affirmed. Summary:  Minerva appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

Board correctly determined references on website were publicly accessible; improper change of grounds vacated and remanded

Posted on February 9, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1160 (IPR2018-00696) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1160.OPINION.2-1-2021_1726200.pdf) MOORE, BRYSON, CHEN February 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board public accessibility finding affirmed; anticipation determination vacated and remanded for improper change in grounds from obviousness. Summary:  M&K … Continue reading →

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

Prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar holdings reversed (e.g., must be accessible to the public)

Posted on April 15, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Company, et al. Docket No. 2019-1243 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions finding prior knowledge or use, public use, and on-sale bar reversed and remanded. Summary: BASF appealed DC decision granted … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

Public FDA hearing is a printed publication, Hulu IPR decision does not apply to examination

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ex parte Antonio J. Grillo-Lopez Appeal 2018-006082 (Appln. No. 13/524,837) Precedential (designated April 7, 2020) Brief Summary: Public FDA hearing held to be printed publication and “the framework set forth in the Hulu decision for IPR proceedings does not apply … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Public Accessibility | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Posted on July 16, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment