Tag Archives: Written Description

So, You Invented a Numerical Range

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, IPR
In Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeals 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision canceling claims in Indivior’s patent claiming a polymer matrix-containing film. Certain claims in the patent recited an amount of polymer matrix inadequately disclosed, according to the … Continue Reading

Mine Your Patent Application and You Might Find a Licensee

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Appeals, Claim Construction, Interferences, Section 112
A patent interference is an adversarial proceeding where each party is trying deprive its opponent of a patent on an invention that that the Patent Office has already decided is patentable. Long after the AIA became effective to phase out interferences, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to declare and administer them where at … Continue Reading

PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma PGR Final Written Decision Based On Written Description Challenge

By Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Post Grant Review, Section 112
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has received 37 petitions for post grant review of patents issuing from examination conducted by the Patent Office’s Group Art Unit 1600. The Board has issued four final written decisions thus far.  We discussed the first final written decision here, where all claims were upheld in the face of … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Splits Hairs in Hair Removal Product Interference Proceeding

By Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Appeals, Interferences, Section 112
In General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2017-1012 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s August 2016 decision that General Hospital Corporation’s (GHC) claims involved in an interference proceeding (that GHC requested) failed to meet the written description requirement. But the court also vacated the PTAB’s denial of … Continue Reading

Written Description of a Genus Can Be Satisfied by Disclosure of Single Species in Predictable Arts

By Jennifer Burnette on Posted in Amendments, Section 112
In Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., No. 2017-1389 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit concluded that disclosure of a species provides written descriptive support for a claimed genus where the invention was in a predicable field of art, the species was a well-known member of the genus, and other members of … Continue Reading

Board Decision Grants Motion to Amend With Respect to One Substitute Claim and Denies Motion to Amend With Respect to Other Substitute Claim

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Amendments, Inter Partes Review, IPR
The Board’s recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.  The Board’s decision, granting patent owner’s motion to amend in part, should be considered in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Veritas Technologies LLC … Continue Reading

PTAB Correctly Construed “Said” and Canceled Claims—but Was the Patent CBM Eligible?

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Section 112
In a CBM appeal, TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1121 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2017) (non-prec.), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the word “said” in the claim term “said hyperlink,” and determined that TransPerfect’s challenged claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. The court’s claim construction analysis is thorough … Continue Reading

To Establish Entitlement to an Earlier Effective Filing Date, Every Claim Limitation Must be Addressed

By Joshua T. Elliott on Posted in Section 112
The PTAB’s final written decision in Inguran, LLC d/b/a Sexing Techs. v. Premium Genetics (UK) LTD., Case PGR2015-00017, Paper 22 (PTAB 2016), illustrates what a Patent Owner must do to demonstrate that a challenged claim is entitled to an earlier effective filing date in an AIA trial. The PGR involved U.S. Patent 8,933,395, which issued … Continue Reading

PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D. on Posted in Claim Construction, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Section 112, Sections 102/103
Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies. Recently, the PTAB decided … Continue Reading

PTAB Institutes Third Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review

thumbnail image of DNA strandBy Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Biotechnology, Post Grant Review, Section 112
To date, only 43 petitions for Post-Grant Review have been filed with the PTAB.  Nine PGR petitions (21% of total petitions) have been filed to challenge patents arising from Art Unit 1600, which examines applications directed to biotechnology and organic chemistry subject matter.  The PTAB recently instituted the third ever PGR for a biotech-related patent … Continue Reading

Post-Filing Claim Amendments Don’t Change the Effective Filing Date for Post Grant Review

By Michael Muczynski on Posted in Amendments, Institution / Denial, Post Grant Review
In considering a novel issue of Post-Grant Review (PGR) eligibility, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board followed the straightforward language of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), and longstanding precedent, holding that post-filing amendments to a pre-AIA patent application do not change its effective filing date and, thus, do not make it eligible for PGR.  David … Continue Reading

No Written Description, No Problem when Prosecution History Disclaimer is Applied

By Sharon M. Sintich, Ph.D. on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, Section 112
The Patent and Trial Appeal Board invoked the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer to construe the claims at issue narrowly for the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,884,033; and thus, concluding that the claims had not been shown to be unpatentable in light of prior art. The Board rejected the Petitioner’s additional arguments … Continue Reading

The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent

By Katherine L. Neville, Ph.D. on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, Section 101, Section 112, Sections 102/103
In what could become a common patent challenge strategy, PeroxyChem, a chemical company that sells products useful in water and soil remediation, has employed a three-front assault—combining the relatively young post-grant review procedure, with an IPR and litigation–to take on one of its competitors, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET).  Litigation together with an IPR has become … Continue Reading

Squeezing the ‘Antibody Exception’ to Written Description into a Corner

thumbnail image of DNA strandBy Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Biotechnology, Inter Partes Review, Section 112
The PTAB has continued the trend of pushing the -“antibody exception” to written description into an ever-smaller corner. Claims to methods of using antibodies that bind Siglec-15 to impair osteoclast differentiation and inhibit bone resorption were deprived of priority because the parent application failed to disclose the “antigenic regions useful for generating antibodies having the … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Can Cite Prior Art in IPR Final Decision That Was Not In Grounds Of Institution

thumbnail image of DNA strandBy Katherine L. Neville, Ph.D. on Posted in Appeals, Biotechnology, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
In a recent appeal from a PTAB final written decision, the Federal Circuit determined that a patentee was not denied notice or an opportunity to respond to references cited in the final written decision as representing the state of the art,  but that were not the basis for a grounds for institution.  (Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. … Continue Reading

Petitioners Are Not Faring Well on 112-challenges in CBM Review

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Section 112
The transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents is a review proceeding administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reconsider the patentability of one or more claims in a CBM patent. Petitioners seeking CBM review have enjoyed good success in knocking out claims for reciting subject matter ineligible for a patent. They … Continue Reading
LexBlog