Category Archives: Written description

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Nalpropion’s naltrexone/bupropion claims found by FC panel not to lack written description (affirming DC) but invalid for obviousness (reversing DC)

Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1221 PROST, LOURIE, WALLACH August 15, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision of no invalidity for lack of WD affirmed, but decision of no obviousness reversed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC judgment … Continue reading

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

ITC claim construction, written description, and finding of infringement by imported E. coli strains affirmed by Federal Circuit

Ajinomoto Co. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC) et al. Docket No. 2018-1590, -1629 (ITC No. 337-TA-1005) DYK (C/D), MOORE, TARANTO August 6, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction, written description, and finding that certain E. coli strains imported … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

DC decision that Invidior’s Suboxone® sublingual film patents are infringed by certain parties and not invalid for obviousness affirmed

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

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)

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)

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