Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2017/05/page/3/
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 23:57:19
Document Index: 316630336

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 103', 'Application No. 13', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103']

Pain Point Medical Systems, Inc. v. Blephex LLC
PTAB Petition: IPR2016-01670; filed August 24, 2016.
PTAB Trial Instituted; entered March 1, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,039,718 ("Method and device for treating an ocular disorder," issued May 26, 2015) claims a method of treating an eye for an ocular disorder with a swab operably connected to an electromechanical device, wherein the eye has an eyelid margin and includes a removable debris, the method comprising; effecting movement of the swab relative to the electromechanical device, the swab having at least a portion thereof configured to access an inner edge portion of the eyelid margin; while the swab is being moved by the electromechanical device, contacting a portion of the eye between the eyelashes and the inner edge of the eyelid margin that includes the removable debris with the swab thereby impacting the debris with the swab to remove debris from the eye.
Petitioner Pain Point Medical Systems, Inc. DBA MiBo Medical Group is challenging the '718 patent on four grounds as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 1-3) and unpatentable in view of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/949,365 (ground 4). View the petition here. Administrative Patent Judges Meredith C. Petravick, Scott A. Daniels (author), and Scott C. Moore issued a decision instituting inter partes review of whether claims 1–11 and 14–17 of the '718 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AlgerBrush II, Seminara, and Stevens; whether claims 1-11 and 14-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AlgerBrush II and Hamburg; and whether claims 1-11 and 14-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yamaura and Stevens.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '718 patent is also at issue in the following litigation: Blephex LLC v. Pain Point Medical Systems, Inc., 3:16-cv-00410-N (N.D. Tex.).
Oticon Medical AB v Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01018; filed March 3, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,043,040 ("Hearing aid apparatus," issued May 9, 2006) claims a bone-conducting bone-anchored hearing aid apparatus for sound transmission from one side of a patient's head to the patient's cochlea on another side of the patient's head for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss.
Petitioners Oticon Medical AB, Oticon Medical LLC, and William Demant Holding A/S are challenging the '040 patent on four grounds as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '040 patent is involved in the following litigation: Cochlear Ltd. et al. v Oticon Medical AB et al., No. 1:16-cv-01700 (D. Co.). The petitioners concurrently filed a petition for an inter partes review of the '040 patent on different grounds (IPR2017-01019; filed 03/03/2017).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01019; filed March 3, 2017.
Petitioners Oticon Medical AB, Oticon Medical LLC, and William Demant Holding A/S are challenging the '040 patent on two grounds as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (ground 1) or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (ground 2). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '040 patent is involved in the following litigation: Cochlear Ltd. et al. v Oticon Medical AB et al., No. 1:16-cv-01700 (D. Co.). The petitioners concurrently filed a petition for an inter partes review of the '040 patent on different grounds (IPR2017-01018; filed 03/03/2017).
Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Hospira, Inc.
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01054; filed March 8, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 8,242,158 ("Dexmedetomidine premix formulation," issued December 25, 2012) claims a ready to use liquid pharmaceutical composition for parenteral administration to a subject, comprising dexmedetomidine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof at a concentration of about 4 μg/mL disposed within a sealed glass container.
Petitioner Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC is challenging the '158 patent on three grounds as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '158 patent is involved in the following litigations: Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 1:16-cv-00651 (N.D. Ill.); and Hospira Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 1:15-cv-00697-RGA (D.Del.). According to the petition, the '158 patent is the subject of inter partes review IPR2016-01577 (Petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; filed 08/10/2016; instituted 02/09/2017; pending). The petitioners concurrently filed petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,338,470 (IPR2017-01055; filed 03/08/2017; pending) and 8,455,527 (IPR2017-01056; filed 03/08/2017; pending).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01055; filed March 8, 2017.
Petitioner Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC is challenging the '470 patent on three grounds as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '470 patent is involved in the following litigations: Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 1:16-cv-00651 (N.D. Ill.); and Hospira Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 1:15-cv-00697-RGA (D.Del.). According to the petition, the '470 patent is the subject of inter partes review IPR2016-01578 (Petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; filed 08/10/2016; instituted 02/09/2017; pending). The petitioners concurrently filed petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,158 (IPR2017-01054; filed 03/08/2017; pending) and 8,455,527 (IPR2017-01056; filed 03/08/2017; pending).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01056; filed March 8, 2017.
Petitioner Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC is challenging the '527 patent on three grounds as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '527 patent is involved in the following litigations: Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 1:16-cv-00651 (N.D. Ill.); and Hospira Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 1:15-cv-00697-RGA (D.Del.). According to the petition, the '527 patent is the subject of inter partes review IPR2016-01579 (Petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; filed 08/10/2016; instituted 02/09/2017; pending). The petitioners concurrently filed petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,158 (IPR2017-01054; filed 03/08/2017; pending) and 8,338,470 (IPR2017-01055; filed 03/08/2017; pending).
May 9, 2017 - "eCommerce Modernization (eMod) Update" (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) - 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET)
May 11, 2017 - "After Laches: Equitable Estoppel Redux?" (Intellectual Property Owners Association) - 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET)
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be offering the next webinar in its Patent Quality Chat webinar series from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) on May 9, 2017. Lisa Tran, Communications Manager for eCommerce, and Richard Fernandez, eMod Project Manager, will provide an "eCommerce Modernization (eMod) Update" on the Office's efforts to improve the overall electronic patent application process. The update will include information about Patent Center, a new tool in development to replace both the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR), and a discussion concerning the eMod Text Pilot Program for filing in text, upcoming text filing features available to all EFS-Web registered users, and how the public can participate in the eMod Project.
IPO Webinar on Laches
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "After Laches: Equitable Estoppel Redux?" on May 11, 2017 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Roger Cook of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Ann Fort of Eversheds Sutherland LLP, and David Kelley of Ford Global Technologies LLC will focus on a point mentioned by both the majority and the dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in SCA Hygiene v. First Quality – that equitable estoppel can protect against some of the consequences that may ensue from the court's decision, problems described by the majority as "unscrupulous patentees inducing potential targets of infringement suits to invest in the production of arguably infringing products." The panel will explore whether equitable estoppel defense can indeed be used in many fact scenarios where laches previously applied.
Posted at 11:59 PM in International IP | Permalink | Comments (2)