Category Archives: Uncategorized

IPR obviousness determinations affirmed; preamble limiting due to reliance for antecedent basis

Shoes By Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC Docket No. 2019-1622, -1623 (IPR2017-01809, -01810) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY June 25, 2020 Brief Summary: Board finding that preamble do not limit the claims affirmed for one patent but not the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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

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 Docket No. 2019-1021 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL March 25, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of infringement of certain claims affirmed as statements made in related IPR … Continue reading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

FB improperly joined to its existing IPRs under 315(c); various obviousness conclusions affirmed and vacated

Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC Docket No. 2018-1400-3, -1537, -1540-41 (IPR2016-00=1156-59, IPR2017-00659, -00709 PROST, PLAGER, O’MALLEY March 18, 2020 Brief Summary: Board improperly joined FB as a party to its own existing IPRs under section 315(c); various obviousness … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IPR decision of obviousness of method of treatment claim reversed for erroneous claim construction

Kaken Pharm. Co., Inc., Bausch Health Cos. Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2018-2232 (IPR2017-00190, -01429) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO March 13, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision reversed based on erroneous claim construction in method of treatment claim. Summary: Kaken appealed … Continue reading

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

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding that Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims are patent ineligible reversed. Summary: Illumina appealed DC decision finding certain claims … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chloroquine and COVID, a real possibility?

Interesting research: 1) An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (Todaro and Rigano) https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTi-g18ftNZUMRAj2SwRPodtscFio7bJ7GdNgbJAGbdfF67WuRJB3ZsidgpidB2eocFHAVjIL-7deJ7/pub#ftnt6 2) Expert Consensus on Chloroquine Phosphate for the Treatment of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Zhonghua, et al.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32164085/?fbclid=IwAR0ZNk2JXMGYCDLKHwB5kykkLUviE03JqNRWGH8P8lt1NRKVJLk6cOIfjv8 3) In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims eligible under 101 (DC reversed); DC obviousness findings affirmed

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2019-1172 DYK, MOORE, HUGHES March 16, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of ineligibility under 101 for method of treatment claims reversed; invalidity for double-patenting and obviousness affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as claim construction excluded preferred embodiment

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1165 (IPR2017-01264) PROST, DYK, WALLACH March 3, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision of no obviousness of certain mapping-related claims reversed as claim construction would exclude the preferred embodiment; obviousness … Continue reading

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

Failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for sale was inequitable conduct, DC decision affirmed

GS Cleantech, Cantor Colburn LLP v. Adkins Energy LLC, Big River Resources et al. Docket No. 2016-2231, -1838, 2017-1832 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES March 2, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct for failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, On-Sale Bar, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board erroneously excluded Apple’s reply arguments as new, not presented in IPR petition

Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation Docket No. 2018-2382, -2383 (IPR2017-00626, -00627) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 7, 2020 Brief Summary: Board erroneously excluded Apple’s IPR reply arguments as new as compared to IPR petition (‘626 remanded), and no anticipation or … Continue reading

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