hals90

[hals90]

Cytiva's claims unpatentable for obviousness based on inherency

Parties: Cytiva Bioprocess R&D AB v. JSR Corp., et al. Date of Decision: December 4, 2024Judges: Prost, Taranto, and Hughes Appeal of:  Six IPR final written decisions Background The patents cover chromatography matrices and processes for isolating biomolecules, particularly antibodies, via affinity chromatography. JSR filed six IPRs, alleging that various claims in the patents were…

[hals90]

DC indefiniteness finding reversed as prosecution history “provides sufficient clarity”

Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Docket No. 2023-2024 LOURIE, PROST, STARK August 20, 2024 Non-Precedential Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness finding reversed and remanded, the FC panel finding the prosecution history “provides sufficient clarity”. Summary:  Neonode sued Samsung for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879, which relates to a user interface for a…

[hals90]

PTAB IPR finding of no obviousness vacated and remanded (specific benefit not required in motivation to combine analysis)

Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. Docket No. 2022-2290, 2023-1183 (PR2021-00593, IPR2022-00081, IPR2022-00084) DYK, REYNA, STOLL August 16, 2024 Non-Precedential Brief Summary:  FC panel vacated PTAB no obviousness decision vacated as specific benefit is not necessary for a motivation to combine and fact-based analysis was based only on attorney argument rather…

[hals90]

DC indefiniteness finding reversed and remanded as no contradiction in claim limitations

Maxell Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd. Docket No. 2023-1194 LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM March 6, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness decision reversed and remanded as “there is no contradiction in the claim language” (limitations to Markush group of transition elements and 30-100% per mole). Summary:   U.S. Patent No. 9,077,035, owned by Maxell, describes a rechargeable lithium-ion battery and…

[hals90]

IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as patent expired and Sumimoto had no “interest in any forward-looking exclusion” or past infringement by unlicensed sales (IPR addresses “patient” vs. population but not discussed here)

Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2022-2276 (IPR2020-01053) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2276.OPINION.4-5-2024_2296961.pdf) TARANTO, HUGHES, CUNNINGHAM April 5, 2024 Brief Summary:  Sumimoto’s appeal of IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for dismissal as the disputed patent was expired as of the appeal and Sumimoto had no interest in past…

[hals90]

DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed (abstract idea, no "improvement in computer technologies")

AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Mach7 Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2022-2109 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2109.OPINION.4-4-2024_2296276.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 4, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed. Summary:   AI appealed DC grant of a motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) that the claims of its US…

[hals90]

DC obviousness and procedural ANDA-related decisions affirmed

Salix Pharm., Ltd. et al. v. Norwich Pharm. Inc. Docket No. 2022-2153, -1952 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2153.OPINION.4-11-2024_2300049.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM April 11, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC obviousness of method of treatment and polymorph patents and ANDA-related (FDA cannot approve current ANDA, correctly denied ANDA amendment) decisions affirmed.  Summary: …

[hals90]

LNC’s unclean hands defense affirmed; no obviousness or inequitable conduct findings vacated and remanded

Luv N’ Care, Ltd., Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain, Eazy-PZ, LLC Docket No. 2022-1905, -1970 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1905.OPINION.4-12-2024_2300689.pdf) REYNA, HUGHES, STARK April 12, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC grant of LNC’s unclean hands defense affirmed; DC findings of no obviousness or inequitable conduct vacated and remanded. Summary:   EZPZ appealed DC judgment…

[hals90]

DC grant of SJ based on determination of 271(e)(1) safe harbor affirmed

Edwards Life Sciences Corp. et al. v. Meril Life Sciences PVT. LTD. et al. Docket No. 2022-1877 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1877.OPINION.3-25-2024_2290338.pdf) LOURIE, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM March 25, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ to Meril based on determination of 271(e)(1) safe harbor affirmed. Summary:   Edwards appealed DC grant of summary judgment (SJ) finding “Meril’s…

[hals90]

IPR obviousness finding reversed for no motivation to combine affirmed

Virtek International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., DBA Aligned Vision Docket No. 2022-1998, -2022 (IPR2021-00062) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1998.OPINION.3-27-2024_2292085.pdf) MOORE, HUGHES, STARK March 27, 2024 Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness finding reversed due to no motivation to combine; IPR non-obviousness finding affirmed as substantial evidence supported…

[hals90]

DC analysis improper to support finding Teva did not show obviousness of Janssen’s schizophrenia drug OB claims

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan Labs. Ltd. Docket No. 2022-1258, -1307 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1258.OPINION.4-1-2024_2293991.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES April 1, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC obviousness decision vacated and remanded; no indefiniteness finding affirmed. Summary:   Teva appealed DC bench trial decision that it had not…

[hals90]

Patents NPE Filing Receipt DC finding of noninfringment partially affirmed; ineligibility under 101 affirmed

Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.(IBM) Docket No. 2022-1756 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1756.OPINION.3-5-2024_2280474.pdf) MOORE, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM March 5, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC finding of noninfringment partially affirmed; ineligibility under 101 affirmed. Summary:   IBM appealed DC grant of summary judgment (SJ) of noninfringement of certain claims…

[hals90]

Board IPR FWDs finding Pfizer’s S. pneumoniae vaccine claims unpatentable for obviousness affirmed

Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. et al. (Merck) Docket No. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875-76, -2224 (IPR2017-02131-32, -02136, -02138, IPR2018-00187) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1871.OPINION.3-5-2024_2280462.pdf) LOURIE, BRYSON, STARK March 5, 2024 Brief Summary:  Five IPR FWDs finding Pfizer’s S. pneumoniae vaccine claims unpatentable for obviousness affirmed. Summary:   Pfizer…

[hals90]

IPR decisions of no obviousness vacated and remanded for improper public accessibility and claim construction determinations

Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologis, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1751, -1813 (IPR2020-01556, -01557 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1751.OPINION.2-8-2024_2267070.pdf) REYNA, HUGHES, STARK February 8, 2024 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decisions reversed and vacated for improper determination of public availability of instruction manuals and claim construction determinations. Summary:  …

[hals90]

Board’s incorrect implicit claim construction, and finding of no obviousness, vacated and remanded

Google LLC, et al. v. EcoFactor, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1750, -1767 (IPR2020-01504, -00792 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1750.OPINION.2-7-2024_2266326.pdf)) REYNA, TARANTO, STARK February 7, 2024 Brief Summary:  Board implicitly construed claims; that construction was improper and led to a finding Google had not shown obviousness; decision vacated and remanded. Summary:   Google…

[hals90]

In Re:  GO & Associates, LLC

Docket No. 2022-1961 (IPR2020-01524  (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1961.OPINION.1-22-2024_2256749.pdf) LOURIE, PROST, REYNA January 22, 2024 Brief Summary:  Board decision GO’s “EVERYBODY VS RACISM” proposed mark “fails to function as a source identifier” (“not solely because it contains informational matter”) Summary:   GO & Associates, LLC (GO) appealed against the United…

[hals90]

Board IPR findings that Apple did not show Masimo’s pulse oximeter claims obvious affirmed

Apple, Inc. v. Masimo Corporation Docket No. 2022-1891 (IPR2020-01524  (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1891.OPINION.1-12-2024_2252724.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, PROST, REYNA January 12, 2024 Brief Summary:  Board IPR findings that Apple did not show Masimo’s pulse oximeter claims obvious affirmed. Summary:  Apple appealed USPTO Board holding that it did not show the…