In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, V. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Appeal Nos 2019-1368 and 2019-1369, decided November 19, 2019 Sanofi-Aventis v Mylan, a majority of the Federal Circuit rejected Sanofi’s request to vacate the Board’s decision and remand to a different Board panel under Arthrex, in a footnote. Slip opinion, footnote 4. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith […]
Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc., Decision IT Corp., v. LifeScan, Inc., LifeScan Scotland, LTD., Johnson and Johnson, Appeal 2019-1163, decided November 22, 2019. pharma-tech-solutions-v-lifescan Procedural Background Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. sued LifeScan, Inc. for infringement of US Patent Nos. 6,153,069 and 6,413,411, both directed to blood glucose monitoring systems. As originally presented, the claims of the […]
Peter v. NantKwest
U.S. Patent US9691090 is directed to methods of operationalizing privacy compliance. On October 10, 2019, PTAB held all claims of the ‘090 patent unpatentable under 35 USC §101 as directed to abstract ideas as a result of a PGR challenge. Avepoint v. Onetrust While it may not come as a surprise to many that claims […]
Alasaad v DHS
On the same day. FCC.2019.11.8. Letter re Location Privacy and HHS Ltr from Senator Warner 8NOV2019
As due diligence for an appeal in a difficult case I have been prosecuting for a client, I looked through the decisions issued by PTAB out of Tech Center 1700 in October of 2019. Here are some things I found interesting: The Board heard 80 appeals, and reversed the Examiner 24 times. In the reversals: […]
In 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s refusal to grant Liqwd a preliminary injunction against L’Oreal Liqwd v L’Oreal Preliminary Injunction. Many reported earlier this summer on L’Oreal’s expensive loss to Olaplex in the District Court of Delaware. (See, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/l-oreal-owes-startup-91-million-for-stealing-its-trade-secrets). L’Oreal has now been dealt another blow by the Federal […]
David Fought and Martin Clanton (“Appellants”, In re Fought and Clanton) are the named inventors on US Patent Application No. 13/507528 directed to a “travel trailer.” The Examiner rejected the claim 1 under 35 USC 102(b) over a reference describing a conventional truck trailer and claim 2 under 35 USC 102(b) over a reference describing […]
Anan Kasei v Neo Chemicals Though the claims at issue in this UK infringement action recited properties that could be deemed to be the claimed oxide’s “essential characteristics,” it is interesting to compare this case with HZNP v. Horizon Pharma (see my recent post for further details), recently decided by the Federal Circuit. The UK […]