Category Archives: Written description

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

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

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

Rehearing reverses prior FC panel decision, concluding instead that negative limitation not described by specification, reverses DC finding of no invalidity

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) Update (June 21, … 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

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

DC grant of SJ for indefiniteness and obviousness of Immunogen’s claims vacated and remanded

Immunogen, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1939 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1939.OPINION.3-25-2022_1926731.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 25, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ that Immunogen’s pending claims are indefinite and obvious vacated and remanded as factual findings not undisputed. Summary:  Immunogen … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Incorporation by Reference, Indefiniteness, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

DC reversed on WD of genus claims and patent co-ownership, affirmed on no willfulness and remanded for damages calculation

BASF Plant Science, L.P., Cargill, Inc. v. Commonwealth Scientific, et al. (“CSIRO”) Docket No. 2020-1415-16, 2020-1919-20 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1415.OPINION.3-15-2022_1921729.pdf) NEWMNA (D), TARANTO, CHEN March 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Following a dispute regarding a collaboration agreement, FC panel affirmed DC fining on … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Infringement, Inventorship, Licensing, Royalties, Venue, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding obviousness and denying entry of amended claims for lack of written description affirmed

Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation Docket No. 2021-1561 (IPR2019-01566) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1561.OPINION.3-10-2022_1919730.pdf) LOURIE, HUGHES, STOLL March 10, 2022 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR FWD finding parachute systems claims obvious and denial of entry of amended claims for lacking written description affirmed. … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Written description | Leave a comment

Biogen’s petition for rehearing en banc denied, panel decision affirmed DC decision that single mention of dose at lower end of range is insufficient written description

Biogen International GmbH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2020-1933 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1933.OPINION.11-30-2021_1871902.pdf) O’MALLEY (dissent), REYNA, HUGHES November 30, 2021 (update March 16, 2022) Update (March 16, 2022):  Biogen’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied.  Judges Lourie, Moore and … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Written description | Leave a comment

ITC decision remanded for briefing on structure correlating to means-plus-function limitation

Kyocera Senco Ind. Tools, et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) Docket No. 2020-1046, -2050 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1046.OPINION.1-21-2022_1896055.pdf) MOORE, DYK, CUNNINGHAM January 21, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC decision vacated and remanded for the parties to brief “what structures correspond to” the means-plus-function … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR decisions finding Sanofi’s injector claims obvious due to lack of written description in priority document affirmed

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2066, -2068-9 (IPRs 2018-01679-80, -82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2066.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious because priority application does not provide … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment