More

Obviousness

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, LLC v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Appeal No. 2022-1765 (Fed. Cir. August 24, 2023).  Before Moore, Lourie, and Cunningham.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obviousness)

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, LLC v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION事件、上訴番号2022-1765(CAFC、2023年8月24日)。Moore裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

IN RE: CELLECT, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, 1294, 1295, 1296 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2023). Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustment)

IN RE: CELLECT, LLC事件、上訴番号2022-1293、1294、1295、1296(CAFC、2023年8月28日)。Lourie裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。PTABによる決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性型二重特許と特許期間調整)

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Appeal Nos. 2022-1451, 2022-1452 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2023).  Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto.  Appealed from the PTAB. (Motivation to combine in Obviousness)

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC.事件、上訴番号 2022-1451、2022-1452 (CAFC、2023年7月10日)。Lourie裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性における組み合わせるための動機)

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Appeal No. 21-2121 (Fed. Cir. September 29, 2022).  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Anticipation/Obviousness)

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.事件、上訴番号 21-2121 (CAFC、2022年9月29日)。 Lourie裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(同一性/自明性)

AURIS HEALTH, INC. V. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC., Appeal No. 2021-1732 (Fed. Cir. April 29, 2022).  Before Dyk, Prost, and Reyna.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Obviousness)

AURIS HEALTH, INC. V. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.事件、上訴番号2021-1732 (CAFC、2022年4月29日)。Dyk裁判官、Prost裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC., Appeal Nos. 2020-2070, 2020-2072 (Fed. Cir. February 4, 2022).  Before Newman, Lourie, and O’Malley.  Appealed from the PTAB. (Obviousness)

QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.事件、上訴番号 2020-2070、2020-2072 (CAFC、2022年2月4日)。 Newman裁判官、Lourie裁判官、O’Malley裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. BAXTER CORPORATION ENGLEWOOD, Appeal No. 2020-1937 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). Before Prost, Clevenger, and Dyk. Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness; Prior Art)

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. BAXTER CORPORATION ENGLEWOOD事件、上訴番号2020-1937 (CAFC、2021年5月28日)。Prost裁判官、Clevenger裁判官、Dyk裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。 (自明性; 先行技術)

RAYTHEON TECH. CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Appeal No. 2020-1755 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2021).  Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Obviousness ;Enablement)

RAYTHEON TECH. CORP. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.事件、上訴番号 2020-1755 (CAFC、2021年4月16日)。Lourie裁判官、Chen裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性; 実施可能要件)

CANFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC., v. MELANOSCAN, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1927 (Fed. Cir. February 18, 2021).  Before Newman, Dyk and Reyna.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

CANFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC., v. MELANOSCAN, LLC事件、上訴番号2019-1927 (CAFC、2021年2月18日)。Newman裁判官、 Dyk裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)  Patrick Gildea氏による要約

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Appeal No. 2019-1319 (Fed. Cir. December 23, 2020).  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.事件、上訴番号2019-1319 (CAFC、2020年12月23日)。Lourie裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC, v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1104 (Fed. Cir. November 9, 2020).  Before Prost, Dyk and Hughes.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness; Analogous Art)

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC, v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC事件、上訴番号2020-1104(CAFC、2020年11月9日)。Prost裁判官、 Dyk裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。 PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性; 類似技術)

ALACRITECH, INC. v. INTEL CORPORATION, Appeal Nos. 2019-1467, 1468 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020).  Before Moore, Chen and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

ALACRITECH, INC. v. INTEL CORPORATION事件、上訴番号2019-1467、1468(CAFC、2020年7月31日)。Moore裁判官、Chen裁判官、 Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

GRIT ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. OREN TECHS., LLC., Appeal No. 2019-1063 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2020). Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

GRIT ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. OREN TECHS., LLC.事件、上訴番号2019-1063(CAFC、2020年4月30日)。Prost裁判官、Newman裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての 上訴。(自明性)

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC., Appeal No. 2019-1164 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020).  Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.事件、上訴番号2019-1164(CAFC、2020年5月5日)。Prost裁判官、 Dyk裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Appeal No. 2018-2097 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2020).  Before Lourie, Reyna and Hughes.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Chesler).  (Obviousness)

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.事件、上訴番号 2018-2097(CAFC、2020年4月8日)。Lourie裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。ニュージャージー州地区地方裁判所(Chesler裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。 (自明性)

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir. January 30, 2020). Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR Institution; Obviousness)

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC事件、上訴番号2019-1177(CAFC、2020年1月30日)。 Prost裁判官、Newman裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

GOOGLE LLC v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., Appeal No. 2019-1234 (Fed. Cir. January 6, 2020).  Before Lourie, Bryson, and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

GOOGLE LLC v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.事件、上訴番号2019-1234 (CAFC、2020年1月6日)。  Lourie裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal No. 2018-1766 (Fed. Cir. November 22, 2019).  Before Reyna, Hughes and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obviousness)

TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.事件、上訴番号2018-1766 (CAFC、2019年11月22日)。 Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORP., Appeal No. 2019-1803 (Fed. Cir. November 8, 2019).  Before Lourie, Stoll, and Moore.  Appealed from PTAB. (Analogous Art; Obviousness)

AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORP.事件、上訴番号2019-1803 (CAFC、2019年11月8日)。 Lourie裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。 PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(類似技術、自明性)

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC., Appeal No. 2018-1925 (Fed. Cir. October 4, 2019).  Before Newman, Taranto, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obviousness; Reasonable Expectation Of Success)

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC.事件、上訴番号18-1925 (CAFC、2019年10月4日)。  Newman裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABからの上訴。(自明性; 成功するであろうという理屈に適った期待)

HENNY PENNY CORP. v. FRYMASTER LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1596 (Fed. Cir. September 12, 2019)  (Lourie, Chen, and Stoll)  Appealed from the PTAB. (Obviousness)

HENNY PENNY CORP. v. FRYMASTER LLC事件、上訴番号2018-1596 (CAFC、2019年9月12日)  (Lourie裁判官、Chen裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。)PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., Appeal No. 2018-1804, 2018-1808, 2018-1809 (Fed. Cir. August 14, 2019).  Before Lourie, Moore and Taranto.  Appealed from D. N.J. (Judge Shipp). (Statutory Disclaimers; Obviousness)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.事件、上訴番号2018-1804、2018-1808、2018-1809 (CAFC、2019年8月14日)。Lourie裁判官、Moore裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。ニュージャージー州地区地方裁判所(Shipp裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(法定放棄; 自明性)

CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER, Appeal No. 2018-1167 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Retroactive Application Of IPR; Obviousness)

CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER事件、上訴番号2018-1167 (CAFC、2019年7月30日)。Prost裁判官、 Bryson裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(IPRの遡及的適用; 自明性)

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. ACTAVIS LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1054 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2019).  Before Wallach, Clevenger and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Andrews). (Claim Construction; Obviousness)

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. ACTAVIS LLC事件、上訴番号2018-1054(CAFC、2019年5月3日)。Wallach裁判官、Clevenger裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Andrews裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈; 自明性)

FOREST LABS., LLC v. SIGMAPHARM LABS., LLC, Appeal Nos. 2017-2369, -2370, -2372, -2373, -2374, -2375, -2376, -2389, -2412, -2436, -2438, -2440, -2441 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 2019).  Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Robinson).  (Claim Interpretation; Obviousness)

FOREST LABS., LLC v. SIGMAPHARM LABS., LLC事件、上訴番号2017-2369、-2370、-2372、-2373、 -2374、-2375、-2376、-2389、-2412、-2436、-2438、-2440、-2441 (CAFC、
2019年3月14日)。Prost裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Robinson裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈; 自明性)

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, Appeal No. 2017-2088 (Fed. Cir. February 1, 2019). Before Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR Joinder; Obviousness)

AMERIGEN PHARM. LTD., v. UCB PHARMA GMBH, Appeal No. 2017-2596 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019).  Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obviousness)

AMERIGEN PHARM. LTD., v. UCB PHARMA GMBH事件、上訴番号2017-2596(CAFC、2019年1月11日)。Lourie裁判官、 Chen裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

REALTIME DATA, LLC v. IANCU, Appeal No. 2018-1154 (Fed. Cir. January 10, 2019).  Before Dyk, Taranto and Stoll.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Motivation To Combine For Obviousness)

REALTIME DATA, LLC v. IANCU事件、上訴番号2018-1154(CAFC、2019年1月10日)。 Dyk裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。特許審判部(PTAB)の決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性における組み合わせの動機付け)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ INC., Appeal No. 2017-1575 (Fed. Cir. October 12, 2018).  Before Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Sleet).  (Obviousness)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ INC.事件、上訴番号2017-1575(CAFC、2018年10月12日)。Reyna裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Sleet裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

OREXO AB v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1333 (Fed. Cir. September 10, 2018).  Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Robinson).  (Obviousness)

OREXO AB v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC事件、上訴番号2017-1333(CAFC、2018年9月10日)。Newman裁判官、Hughes裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Robinson裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。 (自明性)

ZUP, LLC v. NASH MANUFACTURING, INC., Appeal No. 2017-1601 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2018).  Before Prost, Newman, and Lourie.  Appealed from E.D. Virginia (Judge Hudson).  (Obviousness)

ZUP, LLC v. NASH MANUFACTURING, INC.事件、上訴番号2017-1601(CAFC、2018年7月25日)。Prost裁判官、Newman裁判官、Lourie裁判官による審理。バージニア州東部地区地方裁判所(Hudson裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(自明性)

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. BARRY, Appeal No. 2017-1169 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2018) (Taranto, Plager, and Chen).  Appealed from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness and Printed Publications)

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. BARRY事件、上訴番号2017-1169(CAFC、2018年6月11日) (Taranto裁判官、Plager裁判官、Chen裁判官による審理) 米国特許審判部(PTAB)の決定を不服としての上訴。自明性と印刷刊行物

IN RE BRANDT, Appeal No. 2016-2601 (Fed. Cir. March 27, 2018).  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness Of Abutting Ranges)

ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC, v. THALES VISIONIX, INC.,  Appeal No. 2017-1355 (Fed. Cir. February 6, 2018).  Before Wallach, Moore, and Stoll.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness; Substantial Evidence)

IN RE:  JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Appeal No. 2017-1257 (Fed. Cir. January 23, 2018).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obvious-Type Double Patenting)

CFRD RESEARCH, INC. v. MATAL, Appeal No. 2016-2198 (Fed. Cir. December 5, 2017) (Newman, Mayer, and O’Malley).  Appealed from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. v. HOSPIRA, INC., Appeal No. 2017-1115 (Fed. Cir. October 26, 2017).  Before Newman, Lourie and Hughes.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Andrews).  (Obviousness)

OWENS CORNING v. FAST FELT CORPORATION, Appeal No. 2016-2613 (Fed. Cir. October 11, 2017).  Before Newman, Dyk and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

SOUTHWIRE CO. v. CERRO WIRE LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2287 (Fed. Cir. September 8, 2017).  Before Lourie, Moore, Hughes.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC v. KELLOGG NORTH AMERICA COMPANY, Appeal Nos. 2015-2082, -2084 (Fed. Cir. September 7, 2017).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Kennelly).  (Obviousness)

VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC., Appeal Nos. 2016-2283, 2288 (Fed. Cir. August 30, 2017).  Before Lourie, Taranto, and Chen.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

HONEYWELL INT’L INC. v. MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING S.A. DE C.V., Appeal No. 2016-1996 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2017) (Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach).  Appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  (Obviousness)

SOFT GEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. JARROW FORMULAS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2016-1814, 2016-1815 and 2017-1051 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2017).  Before Prost, Bryson and Hughes.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. SANDOZ INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-2066, 2016-1008, -1009, -1010, -1109, -1110, -1283, -1762 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017).  Before Newman, Mayer and O’Malley.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Sleet).  (Obviousness)

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. GEOX S.P.A., Appeal No. 2016-1769 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2017).  Before Dyk, Moore, and Reyna.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

NOVARTIS AG v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, Appeal No. 2016-1352 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2017).  Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL CENTER v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Appeal No. 2016-1518 (Fed. Cir. February 28, 2017).  Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Claim Construction; Obviousness)

ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. v. STRAVA, INC., Appeal No. 2016-1475 (Fed. Cir. February 27, 2017).  Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness Rationale)

PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. APPLE, INC., Appeal No. 2016-1174 (Fed. Cir. February 14, 2017).  Before Taranto, Chen and Stoll.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  (Obviousness)

CUMBERLAND PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1155, -1259 (Fed. Cir. January 26, 2017).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Pallmeyer).  (Derivation; Obviousness)

IN RE: VAN OS, Appeal No. 2015-1975 (Fed. Cir. January 3, 2017).  Before Newman, Moore and Wallach.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

IN RE ETHICON, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1696 (Fed. Cir. January 3, 2017).  Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk.  On appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

IN RE NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1670 (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2016).  Before Moore, Wallach, and Taranto.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Waiver and Obviousness)

IN RE EFTHYMIOPOULOS, Appeal No. 2016-1003 (Fed. Cir. October 18, 2016).  Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson.  Appealed from the PTAB.  (Obviousness)

CLASSCO, INC. v. APPLE, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1853 (Fed. Cir. September 22, 2016).  Before Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORP., Appeal No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. August 30, 2016).  Before Lourie, O’Malley and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness; IPR Substitute Claims)

ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. APPLE INC., Appeal No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. August 10, 2016).  Before Moore, Linn and O’Malley.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

IN RE: WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1050, -1058 (Fed. Cir. August 9, 2016).  Before Prost, Bryson, and Wallach.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

IN RE: MAGNUM OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Appeal No. 2015-1300 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016).  Before Newman, O’Malley and Chen.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Inter Partes Review; Obviousness)

ALLIED ERECTING AND DISMANTLING CO., INC. v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1533 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2016).  Before Newman, Dyk, and Wallach.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC. v. AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1116, 2015-1119. (Fed. Cir. March 23, 2016).  Before Moore, Reyna and Wallach.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR, Obviousness)

 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Appeal Nos. 2015-1171, -1195, and -1994 (Fed. Cir. February 26, 2016).  Before Prost, Dyk, and Reyna.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Koh).  (Obviousness)

ZOLTEK CORP. v. US, Appeal No. 2014-5082 (Fed. Cir. February 19, 2016).  Before Newman, Clevenger and Moore.  Appealed from Ct. Fed. Clms. (Judge Damich).  (Written Description; Obviousness)

PURDUE PHARMA L.P. v. EPIC PHARMA, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2014-1294, etc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2016).  Before Prost, Reyna and Stark (D. Del., by designation).  Appealed from S.D.N.Y. (Judge Stein).  (Anticipation; Obviousness; Problem Source Discovery)

IN RE URBANSKI, Appeal No. 2015-1272 (Fed. Cir. January 8, 2016).  Before Lourie, Bryson, and Chen.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

BELDEN, INC. v. BERK-TEK, LLC, Appeal No. 2014-1575, 1576 (Fed. Cir. November 5, 2015).  Before Newman, Dyk and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness)

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS v. VERINATA HEALTH, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1215 and 2015-1226 (Fed. Cir. November 16, 2015).  Before Prost, Wallach and Taranto.  Appealed from Patent Trials and Appeals Board.  (Inter Partes Review; Obviousness)

ALLERGAN, INC. v. SANDOZ INC., Appeal No. 2014-1275 (Fed. Cir. August 4, 2015).  Before Lourie, Linn and Hughes.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Schneider).  (Obviousness)

CIRCUIT CHECK INC. v. QXQ INC., Appeal No. 2015-1155. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2015).  Before Lourie, Dyk and Moore.  Appealed from E.D. Wis. (Judge Griesbach).  (Obviousness; Non-Analogous Art)

G.D. SEARLE LLC v. LUPIN PHARM., INC., Appeal No. 2014-1476 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015).  Before Prost, Bryson, and Hughes.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Wright Allen).  (Obviousness-Type Double Patenting)

INSITE VISION INC. v. SANDOZ, INC, Appeal No. 2014-1065 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 2015).  Before Prost, Newman, and Linn.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Cooper).  (Obviousness)

SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. V. LUPIN LTD., Appeal No. 2013-1630 (Fed. Cir. March 20, 2015).  Before Plager, Newman, and Moore.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Robinson).  (Obviousness)

IN RE IMES, Appeal No. 2014-1206 (Fed. Cir. January 29, 2015).  Before Lourie, Moore, and Chen.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  (Anticipation and Obviousness)

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1324 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2014).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from D. Conn. (Judge Bond Arterton).  (Obviousness; 35 U.S.C. § 102(g))

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. v. TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1391 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2014). Before O’Malley, Wallach, Hughes. Appealed from D. Md. (Judge Blake). (Obviousness; Inherency)

SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODS., INC. v. BIOTAGE AB, Appeals Nos. 2013-1219, -1220, -1221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2014). Before Newman, Moore, Wallach. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Obviousness)

ABBVIE INC. v. KENNEDY INST. OF RHEUMATOLOGY, Appeal No. 2013-1545 (Fed. Cir. August 21, 2014).  Before Dyk, Wallach and Chen.  Appealed from S.D.N.Y. (Judge Crotty).  (Obviousness-Type Double Patenting)

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO. v. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1306 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2014).  Before Prost, Plager, and Chen.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Burke).  (Obviousness)

ALLERGAN, INC. v. APOTEX INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Chen.  Appealed from M.D.N.C. (Judge Eagles).  (Non-Obviousness)

Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS, B.V. v. LEE, Appeal Nos. 2012‑1630, -1631 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2014).  Before Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes.  Appealed from Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Judge Sui).  (Obviousness)

K/S HIMPP v. HEAR-WEAR TECHNOLOGIES, Appeal No. 2013-1549 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2014).  Before Dyk, Lourie and Wallach.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

INTOUCH TECHS., INC. v. VGO COMMC’NS, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1201 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2014).  Before Rader, Lourie, and O’Malley.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Anderson).  (Obviousness)

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Appeal No. 2012-1489 (April 21, 2014).  Before Newman, Linn and Wallach.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Cavanaugh).  (Obviousness)

HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. V. APOTEX INC., App. No. 2013-1128, -1161 to -1164 (April 11, 2014).  Before Newman, Lourie and Bryson.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Chesler).  (Obviousness)

IN RE TELES AG INFORMATIONSTECHNOLOGIEN, Appeal No. 2012-1297 (Fed. Cir. April 4, 2014).  Before Dyk, Moore and Wallach.  Appealed from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (and D.D.C.). (Obviousness)

MRC INNOVATIONS, INC v. HUNTER MFG., LLP, Appeal No. 2013-1433 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2014).  Before Rader, Prost and Chen.  Appealed from N.D. Ohio (Judge Gaughan). (Obviousness; Design)

IN RE GIANNELLI, Appeal No. 2013-1167 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2014).  Before Rader, Lourie and Moore.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness)

IN RE ENHANCED SECURITY RESEARCH, LLC Appeal No. 2013-1114 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2014).  Before Dyk, O’Malley, and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness; Prior Art)