News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Prior Art

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more

Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Can a prior art reference that does not contain a teaching sufficient enough to allow it to be used in an obviousness combination nevertheless be used as a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine? ...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more

Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness of Novartis’s Patent for Multiple Sclerosis Drug

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to Novartis’s multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya were obvious in Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Ltd., No. 2016-1352 (Fed. Cir....more

Just Because the Board Didn’t Say It, Doesn’t Mean that the Board Didn’t Think It

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2016-1352] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283, and Novartis’ proposed substitute...more

Evidence of Priority to Provisional Application and that Prior Art Was Not Work of Another Defeated Obviousness Challenge in IPR

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more

IPR Tracker: IPR2016-00258 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,051,556) (Green Cross Corp.) – Final Written Decision

by Goodwin on

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00258, wherein Petitioner Green Cross Corp. challenged claims 1-3, 16, and 17 of Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,556. Green Cross, which is...more

In Rare Final Written Decision for “Anti-Troll” Group, Lack of Expert Declaration Dooms Patent

Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of US Pat. No. 8,640,183 owned by Convergent Media Solutions, LLC. Unified’s numerous inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions rarely reach a final...more

Insufficient Showing of Public Availability of Prior Art and Strong, Unrebutted Evidence of Commercial Success Defeats IPR...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC (“Coalition” or “Petitioner”) failed to demonstrate that claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent...more

Factual Findings Required to Show “Apparent Reason to Combine”

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness and anticipation in the context of an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions with respect to the same patent, vacating and remanding the...more

Patentee’s Teaching Away Argument Fails to Overcome Substantial Evidence of Unpatentability

An obviousness challenge can be overcome by showing the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention. However, “teaching away” is a question of fact and thus subject to the substantial evidence standard in appeals from...more

Board Denies Kyle Bass Challenge Against Biogen’s Tecfidera® Patent In View of Unexpected Results

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Biogen’s patent on treating Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”) with a certain dose amount was not obvious because the clinical efficacy exhibited by administering this dose amount...more

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

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Design Patent Survives AIA Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

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

by Jones Day on

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

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

by Jones Day on

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

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

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

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

by Jones Day on

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

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

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

200 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 8
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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!