Category Archives: Written description

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Docket No. 2015-2011 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN June 27, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision of no written description vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred in relying on “conclusions about the Roche 454 platform to conclude that Illumia teaches only … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Technology, LLC

Docket No. 2016-22260 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN June 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of lack of written description affirmed (“a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [WD] requirement”). Summary: Purdue appealed PTAB refusal of … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Rivera et al. v. International Trade Commission and Solofill, LLC (Intervenor)

Docket No. 2016-1841 REYNA, LINN, CHEN May 23, 2017 Brief Summary: ITC decision of no § 337 violation because the asserted claims to a beverage brewer are invalid for lack of written description affirmed. Summary: Rivera appealed ITC holding that … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Importation, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Written description | Leave a comment

Abbott GmbH & Co. KG v. Yeda Res. Develop. Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2015-1662 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES September 20, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision that Abbott’s “purified and isolated TNF[alpha]-binding protein” claimed in US 5,344,915 is inherently disclosed by a German priority document affirmed. Summary: Yeda appealed 2008 and 2015 DC … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Docket No. 2015-1038, -1044 MOORE, O’MALLEY, CHEN July 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC denial of JMOL to Kohler on obviousness and WD grounds affirmed. Decision of willfulness affirmed under Halo (US 2016) (“infringer’s subjective bad faith alone may support an … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

Howmedica Osteonics Corp., Stryker Ireland Ltd. v. Zimmer, Inc., Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1232, -1234, -1239 O’MALLEY, PLAGER, WALLACH May 12, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction (“there is a fine line between reading a claim in light of the written description and reading a limitation into the claim from” it), … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Doctrine of equivalents, Written description | Leave a comment

ULF Bamberg et al. v. Jodi A. Dalvey et al.

Docket No. 2015-1548 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL March 9, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision in an interference that Bamberg’s specification did not disclose the claimed subject matter (“Bamberg…specifically distinguished white layers that melt below 220oC as producing an ‘undesired’ result”) and … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment