Category Archives: Written description

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Circuit reverses DC and finds Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 Vimovo® Orange Book patents invalid for lack of written description

Posted on May 20, 2019 by

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Medicines LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. et al. Docket No. 2017-2473, -2481, -2484, -2486, -2489, -2491-93 PROST, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC reversed as FC panel found found Nuvo/Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 claims to … Continue reading →

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

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al. (Feb. 25, 2019 Update)

Posted on February 27, 2019 by

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Update (Feb. 25, 2019): DC jury verdict (Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-RGA) found ‘165 claims 7 and 15 (“binds to at least D238” or “V380”, respectively) enabled but lacking written description; ‘165 claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Technologies, Inc.

Posted on February 18, 2019 by

Docket No. 2017-2510 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN February 14, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ for invalidity for lack of WD and non-infringement reversed and remanded (e.g., “a reasonable jury could find that…Sonitor personnel complete at least a portion of … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement, Written description | Leave a comment