Category Archives: Written description

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Docket No. 2017-1124 DYK, LINN, HUGHES February 26, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision that “drive” is limited to a variable speed drive reversed (improper reliance on disclosed embodiment), as was reversal of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Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others (e.g.,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Docket Nos. 2017-1079 (IPR2015-00754) MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH December 26, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB denial of Takeda’s contingent motion to amend its claims during IPR vacated and remanded as “the PTAB did not provide an opinion as to any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Docket Nos. 2017-1499, -1500, -1558, -1559 MOORE, MAYER, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of no obviousness affirmed (efficacy limitations not in the prior art of record); finding of literal infringement of certain claims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

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al.

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s exclusion of post-priority-date evidence relating to whether a representative number of species were described in the patents’ specifications reversed and remanded; grant of permanent injunction against Sanofi therefore … Continue reading

Posted in Injunction, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

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