Category Archives: Written description

Persion’s Zohydro ER claims invalid for obviousness and lack of written description (“inherently result in the claimed [PK] parameters”, functional limitations too broad)

Posted on January 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2361 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN December 27, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of invalidity of Persion’s hepatic insufficiency claims related to Zohydro ER for obviousness and no WD affirmed. Summary: Persion … Continue reading →

Posted in Functional limitations, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description

Posted on October 31, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1691 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL to Gilead finding HCV treatment patent invalid for enabled affirmed; FC panel also finds lack of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

DC correctly denied preliminary injunction since Propel showed evidence of anticipation by parent patent application

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Injunction, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Posted on August 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Nalpropion’s naltrexone/bupropion claims found by FC panel not to lack written description (affirming DC) but invalid for obviousness (reversing DC)

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

Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1221 PROST, LOURIE, WALLACH August 15, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision of no invalidity for lack of WD affirmed, but decision of no obviousness reversed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Written description | 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

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

Posted on July 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. (DRL), Actavis/Watson, Teva, Par, Intelgenx, Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC Docket Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177 Newman, Mayer (D), Lourie July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings that Invidior … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board decision finding chromosomal abnormality testing claims lack written description affirmed

Posted on July 11, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Stephen Quake, et al. v. Yuk-Ming Dennis Lo, et al. Docket Nos. 2018-1779, -1780, -1782 Reyna, Chen, Hughes July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board finding of no WD of chromosomal abnormality testing claims affirmed. Summary: Quake appealed Board decision finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Board written description decision vacated as conflicting with Ariad (predictability relevant to WD analysis)

Posted on July 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In re: Global IP Holdings, LLC Docket Nos. 2018-1426 Moore, Reyna, Stoll July 5, 2019 Brief Summary: Board decision affirming rejection of broadening reissue claims for lacking written description vacated and remanded (e.g., Board’s statement “that the ‘233 patent’s specification … Continue reading →

Posted in Reissue, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit invalidates reissue patent invalid for lack of written description (WD)

Posted on June 18, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC et al. (FC Docket No. 2018-1765; June 17, 2019) ~ Forum filed DJ action, DC granted SJ to Forum for lack of WD, FV appealed ~ U.S. 8,215,213 relates “to supporting assemblies” (“arbors”) … Continue reading →

Posted in Reissue, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment