Category Archives: Written description

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

Federal Circuit reverses DC and finds Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 Vimovo® Orange Book patents invalid for lack of written description

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Medicines LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. et al. Docket No. 2017-2473, -2481, -2484, -2486, -2489, -2491-93 PROST, CLEVENGER, WALLACH May 15, 2019 Brief summary: DC reversed as FC panel found found Nuvo/Horizon’s ‘907 and ‘285 claims to … Continue reading

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

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al. (Feb. 25, 2019 Update)

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Update (Feb. 25, 2019): DC jury verdict (Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-RGA) found ‘165 claims 7 and 15 (“binds to at least D238” or “V380”, respectively) enabled but lacking written description; ‘165 claims … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2510 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN February 14, 2019 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ for invalidity for lack of WD and non-infringement reversed and remanded (e.g., “a reasonable jury could find that…Sonitor personnel complete at least a portion of … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Written description | Leave a comment

Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp.

Post-Grant Review PGR2017-00034 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,662,335 B2) Decision not to institute PGR January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Concert’s Petition to institute PGR of Incyte’s US 9,662,335 B2 regarding deuterated ruxolitinib was denied. Summary: Concert filed a Petition to institute … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Enablement, Post-grant review, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

In Re: David Tropp

Docket No. 2017-2503 PROST, CLEVENGER, MOORE December 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims for lacking a sufficient written description under § 112 vacated and remanded because the Board did discuss in its opinion … Continue reading

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

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