Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

In re Ethicon: Connecting Seemingly Unrelated Dots May Support An Obviousness Conclusion

Composition claims are often rejected as obvious over the combinations of prior art referenced, that separately claim the ingredients of the claimed combination. Moreover, often the disclosure of the claimed ingredients is in...more

ANDA Update - March 2017 Volume 3, Number 1

Speculative Evidence of Irreparable Harm Sinks Bayer's Request for Permanent Injunction - Bayer Pharma AG, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. December 28, 2016) - Applying the eBay factors to Plaintiff...more

Including Functional Claim Language Helped Save Pozen’s VIMOVO® Patents

On February 28, 2017, the PTAB held that the petitioner Lupin had not shown that the challenged claims in two of Pozen’s patents were invalid (IPR2015-01773 and IPR2015-01775).  These cases show the advantage of using...more

Design Patent Survives AIA Review

In a rare inter partes review (IPR) decision involving a challenge to a design patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision finding that the petitioner had not shown that a sole claim of a design...more

Celltrion Files Response Brief in Infliximab Appeal

As we previously reported, in Janssen v. Celltrion, Janssen appealed the district court’s partial final judgment that Janssen’s ‘471 patent, relating to monoclonal antibodies including infliximab, is invalid. As we also...more

In an IPR, the Burden of Persuasion in an Obviousness Challenge Never Shifts to Patentee

On March 3, 2017, in a final written decision in IPR2015-01838, the PTAB rejected an obviousness challenge brought by DuPont against a patent owned by Furanix Technologies B. V. directed to methods for preparing the known...more

Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more

Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness Cap on Obviousness Showing

In a rare case where secondary considerations of non-obviousness carried the day, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that even though the petitioner made a sufficient obviousness showing, the patent owner’s...more

Prior Art Preference for an Alternative is Not Enough to Teach Away

In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., [2016-1755] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 on a system whereby a user can identify a supplier of...more

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2017

“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Claim Construction and Obviousness Conclusion in Eli Lilly’s IPR against LA BioMed

The Federal Circuit held that a rat study in a provisional application and a conversion method in an uncited reference did not support the claimed human dosage form in Los Angeles Biomed. Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,...more

PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Proceedings Against Bayer’s Patent Covering STIVARGA®

On February 8, 2017, the PTAB denied Fustibal LLC’s (“Fustibal”) petition to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,637,553 B2 (“the ’553 patent”) owned by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”) (IPR2016-01490). The 553...more

In re Depomed, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Last month, in In re Depomed, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two instituted grounds in an inter partes review rendered claims 1,...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part I - March 2017

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. McKesson Corp. v. My Health, Inc. - PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00312; filed November 29,...more

Federal Circuit Holds That the PTAB May Consider Legal Conclusions of Obviousness by Expert Witnesses That Are Supported by...

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may consider legal conclusions of obviousness by experts, but the expert papers must make adequate factual findings and provide a satisfactory explanation as to determinations of...more

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research...

The Federal Circuit handed down two related opinions last week, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, one of which raised the question...more

The Federal Circuit Considers a New Issue on Appeal, Lectures the PTO on its Burden to Establish Obviousness, and Reveals an...

The Federal Circuit in Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1475 (Feb. 27, 2017), made several interesting points and revealed a disagreement among four of its judges about the proper disposition when...more

Not Intuitively Obvious: Federal Circuit Remands for Explicit Rational to Combine

In a rebuke of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) obviousness analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB obviousness determination, explaining that the PTAB failed to...more

Secondary Considerations Unsuccessful Once Again

As reported in our February 1, 2017 post, patent owners have had a difficult time convincing the PTAB that secondary considerations are sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. The Crown Packaging decision,...more

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands to PTAB Because of Insufficient Analysis of Obviousness in IPR

In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more

Wrong Inventor Defense Fails in Pharmaceutical Litigation

Addressing derivation and obviousness issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a generic drug manufacturer’s attempt to invalidate a patent based on the theory that the...more

General “Desire” to Improve Can Provide Sufficient Rationale to Combine References

Pointing to the “normal desire” of scientists to improve what is already known as a rationale to combine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) inter partes...more

USPTO Standards of Review for Inter Partes Review Proceedings

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is using the APA to check the PTAB’s tendency to invalidate claims....more

Final Written Decision Relies on Unexpected Results To Uphold Pozen’s Ulcer Reducing Vimovo® Claims Over Kyle Bass’s IPR Challenge

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision upholding Pozen’s ulcer reducing Vimovo® claims based on unexpected results in Coalition For Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01718, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B., Feb. 21, 2017)....more

461 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 19
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×