Category Archives: Written description

FC panel affirms DC finding that Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents are not invalid, but also that method of treatment claims are invalid, for obviousness

Posted on April 21, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. Docket No. 2020-1147, 1149-51 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1147.OPINION.4-19-2023_2113208.pdf) LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, STARK April 19, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding that two of Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents not invalid for obviousness affirmed.  DC finding that another of … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Board finding of no written description of genus claims in priority applications and anticipation affirmed

Posted on March 8, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2168 (IPR 2017-01712) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2168.OPINION.3-6-2023_2090143.pdf) LOURIE, DYK, STOLL March 6, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR FWD finding UM’s genus claims lack a sufficient written description in priority applications … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Markush, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

DC claim construction based on description of invention affirmed; anticipation reversed; trade dress invalidity affirmed

Posted on February 7, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mosaic Brands, Inc., et al. v. Ridge Wallet LLC Docket No. 2022-1001-2 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1001.OPINION.12-20-2022_2050643.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, STARK December 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed based on description of invention “as a whole” in specification.  Anticipation finding based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Trade Dress, Written description | Leave a comment

Novartis appeals to SCOTUS rehearing of FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on January 25, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 24, 2022 Second Update (January 24, 2023): Novartis petitioned SCOTUS with two questions presented:  1) Whether … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Negative Limitations, U.S. Supreme Court, Written description | 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

SCOTUS denies Juno’s petition for certiorari regarding written description

Posted on November 9, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Sloan Kettering v. Kite Pharma, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1758 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1758.OPINION.8-26-2021_1825257.pdf) MOORE, PROST, O’MALLEY August 26, 2021 (updated November 9, 2022) Update (Nov. 9, 2022):  SCOTUS denied Juno’s petition for certiorari (21-1566).  As summarized below, the FC reversed … Continue reading →

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

Assigned claim not broader than asserted claim, DC assignor estoppel decision affirmed

Posted on August 15, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hologic, Inc., et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2054, -2081 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2054.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990706.pdf) STOLL, CLEVENGER, WALLACH August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   On remand from SCOTUS, assignor estoppel decision affirmed as asserted claim not broader than assigned claim. Summary:  This … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, Written description | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness conclusion vacated for incorrect claim construction, grant of SJ regarding jurisdiction vacated

Posted on June 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Univ. of Massachusetts, Carmel Labs., LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1969 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1969.OPINION.6-13-2022_1964183.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO June 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding vacated due to improper claim construction and grant of SJ for … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Wherein, Written description | Leave a comment

SCOTUS denies Novartis’ petition for certiorari regarding FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on June 22, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) Original Panel:  MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY (January 3, 2022) Rehearing Panel:  MOORE, LINN (D), HUGHES (June 21, 2022) Third Update (April … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Docket No. 2021-1864 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1864.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934126.pdf) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of indefiniteness reversed, but induced infringement, exclusion of expert witness report and damages findings affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Medical Devices, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties, Written description | Leave a comment