Category Archives: Written description

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2017-00008 (US 9,283,239 B2) Final Written Decision June 22, 2018 Brief summary: FWD decision following PGR finding AB’s method of treatment claims invalid for lack of written description (claimed dosage range not described). Summary: Grünenthal’s petition for post-grant review (PGR) … Continue reading

Posted in Post-grant review, Written description | 1 Comment

D Three Enterprises, LLC v. Sunmodo Corp. / Rillito River Solar LLC (EcoFasten)

Docket No. 2017-1909, -1910 REYNA, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 21, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision of invalidity for lack of written description (WD) affirmed because, e.g., “adequate [WD] does not ask what is permissible, rather, it asks what is disclosed” (Ariad, … Continue reading

Posted in Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2707, -2708 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES April 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement of later-issued OB patent by amended ANDA, and that method of treatment claims are patentable under § 101 affirmed. Summary: WW appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Patentability, Written description | Leave a comment

Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1124 DYK, LINN, HUGHES February 26, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision that “drive” is limited to a variable speed drive reversed (improper reliance on disclosed embodiment), as was reversal of Examiner’s prior art rejection that was dependent … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Nintendo of America Inc. et al. v. iLife Technologies, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others (e.g., “prototype has … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Array Biopharma Inc.

Docket Nos. 2017-1079 (IPR2015-00754) MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH December 26, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB denial of Takeda’s contingent motion to amend its claims during IPR vacated and remanded as “the PTAB did not provide an opinion as to any of … Continue reading

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

Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., Alcon Labs., Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1499, -1500, -1558, -1559 MOORE, MAYER, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of no obviousness affirmed (efficacy limitations not in the prior art of record); finding of literal infringement of certain claims reversed (ANDA does … Continue reading

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