Category Archives: Written description

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 30, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1939 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1939.OPINION.3-25-2022_1926731.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 25, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ that Immunogen’s pending claims are indefinite and obvious vacated and remanded as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

Posted on March 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 8, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on January 24, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

DC decisions reversed-in-part due to improper claim construction findings

Posted on January 19, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., DBA Supertool USA / Juggernaut Docket No. 2021-1963 and 2021-1987 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1963.OPINION.1-14-2022_1893196.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN January 14, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decisions reversed due to improper claim construction. Summary:  Evolusion appealed DC grant of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Claim Vitiation, Written description | Leave a comment

FC panel finds negative limitation sufficiently described, affirms DC finding of no invalidity

Posted on January 6, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 3, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC finding Novartis patent not invalid for lack of written description of … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

Single mention of dose at lower end of range is insufficient written description, DC decision affirmed

Posted on December 3, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding a lack of written description based on “[t]he specification’s sole reference to” the claimed dosage … Continue reading →

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