Erectile Dysfunction Drug-Patent Found Obvious

BAYER PHARMA AG, v. WATSON LABS, INC.: Nov. 1, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley   Takeaway: The CAFC will reverse a finding of non-obviousness where key references are missing from a district court’s opinion and mere concerns over effectiveness do not rise to the level of teaching away. Procedural Posture: Alleged …

PTAB’s Adoption of Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Modification of a Prior Art Reference Held Minimally Sufficient to Support its Obviousness Determination

IGNITE USA, LLC v. CAMELBAK PRODS., LLC: October 12, 2017 (non-precedential). Before Prost, Wallach, and Taranto.   Takeaway: PTAB’s adoption of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in its opinion was “sufficient, if minimally,” to explain the connection between its factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness. Procedural Posture: CamelBak Products, LLC petitioned for …

R&H’s Processes for Preparing Emulsion Polymers with Improved Opacity Not Invalid over the Prior Art that Does Not Include a “Swelling Agent” Narrowly Construed by the PTAB

ORGANIK KIMYA AS v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY: October 11, 2017. Before Prost, Newman, and Taranto.   Takeaway: Where a patent specification uses the word ‘include’ immediately followed by the phrase ‘are those which,’ the element is properly limited to the embodiments “which exhibit the functional characteristics thereafter described.” Procedural …

Non-Profit Organization Appellee Described as Representing the Public Interest Not Excluded from Appearing in Court to Defend a PTAB Decision

PERSONAL AUDIO v. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: August 7, 2017.  Before Newman, Clevenger, and O’Malley   Takeaway: A non-profit organization appellee described as representing the public interest is not excluded from appearing in court to defend a PTAB decision in view of the Consumer Watchdog decision with the appellant satisfying the …

The Board’s Decision Finding Waterproof Leather Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Affirmed by the CAFC, a Person of Ordinary Skill Need Not Have the Same Motivation as the Patent’s Inventor

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. GEOX S.P.A.: No. 2016-1769; June 16, 2017.  Before Dyk, Moore, and Rena. Takeaway: The motivation to combine inquiry is not limited to the problem faced by the inventor of a patent. Procedural Posture: Outdry appealed from the Board’s decision in an IPR finding that claims 1-15 of its …