Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.

Nobel Biocare Services AG (“Nobel”) appeals from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) holding claims 1–5 and 19 of U.S. Patent 8,714,977 (“the ’977 patent”) unpatentable. See Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Servs. AG, No. IPR2015-01786, 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 8329 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017) (“Board Decision”); Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Servs. AG, No. IPR2015-01786, 2017 WL 1969639 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2017) (“Rehearing Decision”). Because the Board did not err in its anticipation finding, we affirm.

Download Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) appeals from three final written decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in related inter partes review proceedings, in which the Board held certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940 (“the ’940 patent”) unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1 Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (together, “Qualcomm”) cross-appeal from the Board’s determination that Qualcomm failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that certain other claims of the ’940 patent are unpatentable. We affirm.

Download ParkerVision Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC

Orexo AB and Orexo US Inc. (collectively “Orexo”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, holding claims 1, 3–6, and 8–10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,940,330 (“the ’330 Patent”) invalid on the ground of obviousness. The ’330 Patent, entitled “Abuse-Resistant Pharmaceutical Composition for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence,” claims a product having the brand name Zubsolv®, approved by the FDA for treatment of opioid dependence.

Actavis Elizabeth LLC (“Actavis”) filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic counterpart of Zubsolv, accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, leading to this Hatch-Waxman litigation in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) and 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A). Two Orexo patents were challenged by Actavis, but U.S. Patent No. 8,454,996 (“the ’996 Patent”), entitled “Pharmaceutical Composition for the Treatment of Acute Disorders,” which was held valid in the district court, is not involved in this appeal.

We reverse the judgment of invalidity of the ’330 Patent, for we conclude that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Download Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.

Before us are patents that claim the administration of a medication containing the active ingredient 4- aminopyridine (4-AP) to improve walking in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., holds New Drug Application No. 022250, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pursuant to that approval, Acorda markets, under the name “Ampyra®,” 10 milligram 4-AP sustained-release tablets for twice daily oral administration. In the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or Orange Book, Acorda has listed, as claiming methods of using Ampyra, four patents that Acorda owns: U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826; No. 8,663,685; No. 8,354,437; and No. 8,440,703. Those patents (“the Acorda patents”) are the main patents at issue on appeal.

One additional patent is before us. Acorda holds an exclusive license to an earlier, broader patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,540,938, referred to as “the Elan patent” because it was originally assigned to Elan Corporation, plc (whose successor in interest is Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.). The Elan patent, listed in the Orange Book for Ampyra along with the Acorda patents, claims methods of treating patients having certain conditions, including multiple sclerosis, by administering a drug containing a sustained release formulation of any of certain agents, one of them 4-AP. The later Acorda patents claim species of the Elan patent’s genus claims by adding further, more specific requirements to the Elan patent’s claimed methods. While the Elan patent’s claims broadly cover administering a sustained-release formulation of 4-AP to individuals with multiple sclerosis, the Acorda patents’ claims further specify that such a drug must be administered (1) in a 10 mg dose twice a day (2) at that stable dose for the entire treatment period of at least two weeks (3) to achieve 4-AP serum levels of 15–35 ng/ml and (4) to improve walking.

Roxane Laboratories, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., have submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Ampyra. In July 2014, Acorda and Alkermes sued those entities (“defendants”) in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of several claims in each of the Elan and Acorda patents. The defendants stipulated to infringement but challenged the validity of the asserted claims. The district court held that the asserted claims in the Acorda patents are invalid for obviousness. But the court upheld the asserted claims of the Elan patent against invalidity challenges and enjoined the defendants from activity infringing that patent until it expired on July 30, 2018.

Acorda appealed the invalidity ruling regarding the Acorda patents. The defendants cross-appealed the validity ruling regarding the Elan patent and the resulting injunction. We now affirm the judgment that the asserted Acorda patent claims are invalid. We dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.

Download Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.

The University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, (collectively “UC”), appeal a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining there was no interference-in-fact between UC’s Application No. 13/842,859, and the claims of twelve patents and one application owned by the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College, (collectively “Broad”). Because the Board’s underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the Board did not err in concluding that Broad’s claims would not have been obvious over UC’s claims, we affirm.

Download University of California v. Broad Institute Inc.

 

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. filed a petition to institute an inter partes review of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,033. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review that resulted in a final written decision that the reviewed claims are invalid. Patent owner IXI IP, LLC appeals the final written decision. We find that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Download IXI IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.

Appellant Worlds Inc. (“Worlds”) appeals the final decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) invalidating three patents in three inter partes reviews (“IPRs”). Because we hold that the Board erred in its real-party-in-interest analysis, we vacate its decisions and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Worlds Inc. v. Bungie Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”) appeals from a grant of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that T-Mobile USA, Inc., TMobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, and United States Cellular Corporation (collectively, “T-Mobile”) have not infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248. Because we hold that the district court’s grant of summary judgment resulted from an erroneous claim construction, we vacate and remand. We affirm the district court’s determination regarding indefiniteness.

Download Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson appeal the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, finding that claims 1–3, 6–9, and 12–14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because we conclude that the Board improperly did not consider portions of Ericsson’s Reply, we vacate and remand.

Download Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

In re: Maatita

This is an appeal from a rejection in initial examination of appellant Ron Maatita’s design patent application covering the design of an athletic shoe bottom. The examiner rejected the application’s single claim as non-enabled and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it used a single, two-dimensional plan-view drawing to disclose a shoe bottom design and thereby left the design open to multiple interpretations regarding the depth and contour of the claimed elements. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirmed the examiner’s rejection. Because we find the Board misapplied § 112 in the design patent context, we reverse.

Download In re Maatita

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.