Category Archives: Uncategorized

Board decision invalidating Sanofi’s Lantus®-related claims for obviousness affirmed

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket Nos. 2019-1368, -1369 (IPR2017-01526, -01528) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN November 19, 2019 Nonprecedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision invalidating Sanofi’s Lantus®-related claims for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Sanofi appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR decision finding … Continue reading

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

TM decision reversed due to TTAB’s erroneous analysis of “substantially exclusive” use claim

Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.R.L. Docket Nos. 2019-1150 PROST, CLEVENGER, MOORE November 13, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Galperti TX priority argument correctly denied, but decision remanded as TTAB found to have erroneously analyzed whether Galperti IT’s “substantially exclusive” use claim … Continue reading

Posted in Trade Dress, Trademarks, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obviousness of utility patent affirmed; grant of SJ of non-infringement of design patent reversed and remanded

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1329, 1331, -1728 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 13, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding that Columbia’s utility patent is invalid for obviousness affirmed. DC grant of SJ that Columbia’s … Continue reading

Posted in Design Patents, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art analysis (“reasonably pertinent”)

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation Docket Nos. 2019-1803 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 8, 2019 Brief Summary: Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art determination (i.e., “whether the reference…is reasonably pertinent”). Summary: Airbus appealed Board reversal … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board construction of “wherein” clause affirmed; remanded for review of non-instituted grounds

Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP Docket Nos. 2018-1812 (IPR2016-01502) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA October 29, 2019 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction of the “wherein” clause affirmed; decision remanded for consideration of non-instituted grounds. Summary: Alere appealed Board IPR final … Continue reading

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

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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

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