Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Lannett Holdings, Inc. June 28, 2018 Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Opinion by Lourie. Summary This case involved a “close” question of obviousness that was ultimately decided in no small part by the perceived relative ...

 

CAFC Alert: Spray your way to non-obviousness: Patents directed to intranasal delivery of migraine drugs not obvious where prior art would have resulted in reduced efficacy

Spray your way to non-obviousness: Patents directed to intranasal delivery of migraine drugs not obvious where prior art would have resulted in reduced efficacy

Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Lannett Holdings, Inc. June 28, 2018 Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Opinion by Lourie. Summary This case involved a “close” question of obviousness that was ultimately decided in no small part by the perceived relative credibility of the parties’ experts. The Federal Circuit deferred to the district court’s preference for the […]

 

One More Bite at Overcoming a Denial of a Motion to Amend

Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc. June 19, 2018 Before Prost, Moore and Stoll. Opinion by Moore. Summary This precedential opinion highlights some of the complicated issues which can arise in an IPR, particularly in light of recent precedent of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) […]

 

The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s application of the time-bar under § 315(b) and the obviousness determination

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, ION International S.A.R.L. (collectively, “ION”); In re WesternGeco, LLC. May 7, 2018 Before Wallach, Chen and Hughes. Opinion by Chen. This is the latest Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in a series of patent litigations since 2009.  In this case, the CAFC reviewed two main issues appealed from six inter […]

 

The Definiteness Standard for AIA Trials is Still Undecided

Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp. May 30, 2018 O’Malley, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by O’Malley. Summary: This case is an appeal from a final decision from the PTAB in a Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) finding that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 are indefinite applying the In re Packard standard for definiteness. Tinnus Enterprises […]

 

The test for obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teachings of the references

In re: Daryl David Coutts April 6, 2018 Before Dyk, Wallach and Chen. Opinion per curiam. Summary The inventor Daryl David Coutts has a patent application 11/836,293 rejected by the Examiner and the Board (Patent Trail and Appeal Board) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness as being unpatentable over the combination of three prior […]