Tag Archives: Secondary Considerations

Should I Stay or Should I Go? – Co-Pending IPR and Litigation Can Lead to Discovery Obligations

Fighting a war on two fronts is rarely an enviable strategic position. While district court judges do not always grant stays of patent infringement cases until resolution of co-pending inter partes reviews (IPR’s), accused infringers considering whether to request a stay of litigation should note the PTAB’s February 28, 2018, Order in Becton, Dickinson and … Continue Reading

Secondary Considerations Change Panel’s Mind after Institution

The PTAB is not often persuaded by objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations, when the scope and content of the prior art includes all of the features recited in the claims. However, a pair of recent PTAB decisions, Innopharma Licensing, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., LTD., IPR2015-00902, Paper 90, and IPR2015-00903, Paper 82 (PTAB … Continue Reading

Secondary Considerations Error Does Not Warrant Reversal

As we’ve previously reported, patent owners have had little success arguing secondary considerations of non-obviousness during inter partes review. Underscoring the challenge that patent owners face, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB obviousness determination despite finding that it had erred in its consideration of the patent owner’s evidence regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness.… Continue Reading

Dissent: “Deferential review by the Federal Circuit falls short of the legislative purpose of providing optimum determination of patent validity.”

In Merck & CIE v. Gnosis S.P.A., Gnosis Bioresearch S.A., Gnosis U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 2014-1779 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that the contested claims were invalid for obviousness, determining that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and agreeing with the Board’s conclusion of obviousness.  … Continue Reading

Secondary Considerations Finally Found to be Persuasive

In what appears to be only the second instance¹ to date, evidence of secondary considerations helped a Patent Owner defend against a Petitioner’s obviousness challenge during an IPR proceeding.  In Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Board issued its final written decision and held that each of the eight challenged claims were not unpatentable, finding the … Continue Reading

Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition

Boehringer Ingelheim filed three petitions attacking patents generally drawn to methods of treating RA patients with rituximab.  The decisions on two of those petitions, i.e., IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00417, have been addressed elsewhere.  In IPR2015-00418, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on the petition’s challenges to the lone claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172, drawn … Continue Reading

Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan

Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec.  The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent.  Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 … Continue Reading
LexBlog