Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2015/11/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 02:05:19
Document Index: 613711570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 111', '§ 1', '§ 112', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 103', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Patent Docs: November 2015
USPTO and INPI Establish PPH Pilot Program
On November 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Brazil's National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between the two offices. The two-year pilot program will begin on January 11, 2016 and may be extended upon mutual agreement of the offices.
PPH programs permit applicants who receive a positive ruling on patent claims from one participating office to request accelerated prosecution of corresponding claims in another participating office. The USPTO noted that the new PPH pilot program is the centerpiece of the June 2015 U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue Joint Statement on Patent Work Sharing signed by Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Brazilian Minister of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade, Armando Monteiro.
Requirements for participation in the USPTO-INPI PPH can be found here.
USPTO Revises ADS Form
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced via a Patent Alert e-mail earlier this month that a revised version of the Application Data Sheet (ADS) form PTO/AIA/14 is now available on the USPTO patents forms page and that applicants can begin using the form as of today. As we reported previously, the new ADS form was necessitated by changes to the rules of practice that permit applicants to authorize the USPTO to give certain foreign IP offices access to all or part of the file contents of an unpublished U.S. patent application in order to satisfy a requirement for information imposed on a counterpart application filed with the foreign IP office (see "USPTO Revises Rules to Facilitate Access to Applications and File Contents by Foreign IP Offices").
As the Office notes, applicants are no longer required to check a box on the ADS form to provide the USPTO with authorization to permit a foreign intellectual property office participating in the priority document exchange (PDX) program access to a U.S. priority application or permit access to the search results from a U.S. priority application by the European Patent Office (EPO), and instead, the revised ADS form contains by default the authorization to permit access to the U.S. priority application or search results. The new form contains opt-out check boxes in place of the old opt-in check box. Applicants wishing to revoke either of the above authorizations must use forms PTO/SB/39 and PTO/SB/69 rather than the new ADS form.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced via a Patents Alert e-mail last month that the Ninth Edition, Revision 07.2015 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) has been released. The new version of the MPEP incorporates changes to the laws, rules, and practice necessitated by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) (see "USPTO Issues Final Rule to Implement Patent Law Treaty -- Changes Take Effect December 18"), as well as other revisions. The new version of the MPEP can be access here.
USPTO Systems Offline on December 5
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced via a Patents Alert e-mail earlier today that access to Public PAIR, Private PAIR, EFS-Web, and EFS-Web Contingency will be unavailable from 12:01 am until 11:59 pm ET on Saturday, December 5 to allow for systems maintenance. The Office noted that availability of the systems will be posted here.
The Office reminded applicants that during the time that the systems will be down, new patent applications, new international design applications and documents and fees for national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. § 371 may be filed via Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.10, and that other documents and fee payments may be made by facsimile transmission to the USPTO Central Facsimile number at 571-273-8300, by first class mail with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8, or Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.10. The Office also reminded applicants that filing of new applications under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) (other than reissue, design or plant applications) via Priority Mail Express® will still require payment of the non-electronic filing fee ($400 for large entities) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.16(t). Finally, the Office strongly advised applicants to complete any filings via the EFS-Web prior to the outage period in order to ensure that the submissions are correctly completed. Questions regarding alternative filing methods to the EFS-Web should be directed to the USPTO Inventor's Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm ET).
1:15-cv-00756; filed August 27, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware
• Defendants: Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009 ("Modified Release Formulations of Memantine Oral dosage Forms," issued October 18, 2011), 8,058,291 ("Methods and Compositions For the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions," issued November 15, 2011), 8,168,209 ("Method and Composition for Administering an NMDA Receptor Antagonist to a Subject," issued May 1, 2012), 8,173,708 (same title, issued May 8, 2012), 8,283,379 ("Method and Compositions for the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions," issued October 9, 2012), 8,293,794 (same title, issued October 23, 2012), 8,329,752 ("Composition for Administering an NMDA Receptor Antagonist to a Subject," issued December 11, 2012), 8,338,485 ("Compositions for the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions," issued December 25, 2012), 8,338,486 ("Methods for the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions," issued December 25, 2012), 8,362,085 ("Method for Administering an NMDA Receptor Antagonist to a Subject," issued January 29, 2013), 8,580,858 ("Compositions For the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions," issued November 12, 2013), and 8,598,233 ("Method for Administering an NMDA Receptor Antagonist To A Subject," issued December 3, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Amneal's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Forest's Namzaric ® (memantine hydrochloride extended-release and donepezil hydrochloride, used for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type). View the complaint here.
The Medicines Company v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1:15-cv-07507; filed August 26, 2015 in the Northern District of Illinois
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 ("Pharmaceutical Formulations of Bivalirudin and Process of Making the Same," issued September 1, 2009) and 7,598,343 (same title, issued October 6, 2009) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Sagent's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of The Medicines Company's Angiomax® (bivalirudin, used as an anticoagulant in patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous translurninal coronary angioplasty). View the complaint here.
Cephalon Inc. v. Panacea Biotec, Ltd.
1:15-cv-00735; filed August 25, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,445,524 ("Solid Forms of Bendamustine Hydrochloride," issued May 21, 2013), 8,791,270 (same title, issued July 29, 2014), 8,669,279 ("Solid Forms of Bendamustine Hydrochloride," issued March 11, 2014), 8,883,836 (same title, issued November 11, 2014), and 8,895,756 ("Bendamustine Pharmaceutical Compositions," issued November 25, 2014) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Panacea's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Cephalon's Treanda® (bendamustine hydrochloride, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). View the complaint here.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.
1:15-cv-00145; filed August 25, 2015 in the Northern District of West Virginia
• Plaintiffs: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
• Defendants: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,673,927 ("Uses of DPP-IV Inhibitors," issued March 18, 2014), 8,846,695 ("Treatment For Diabetes In Patients With Inadequate Glycemic Control Despite Metformin Therapy Comprising A DPP-IV Inhibitor," issued September 30, 2014), and 8,853,156 ("Treatment For Diabetes In Patients Inappropriate For Metformin Therapy," issued October 7, 2014) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Mylan's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Boehringer's Tradjenta® (linagliptin, used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus) and Jentadueto® (linagliptin and metformin hydrochloride, used an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus when treatment with both linagliptin and metformin is appropriate) products. View the complaint here.
Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
2:15-cv-06401; filed August 24, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware
• Plaintiffs: Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,532,372 ("Imide Derivatives, and Their Production and Use," issued July 2, 1996) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Teva's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Sumitomo's Latuda® (lurasidone hydrochloride, used to treat depressive episodes associated with Bipolar I Disorder (bipolar depression) as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate and used for the treatment of schizophrenia). View the complaint here.
Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
2:15-cv-01455; filed August 24, 2015 in the Eastern District of Texas
• Defendants: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Apotex, Inc.; Apotex Corp.; Akorn, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.
Infringement of U.S Patent Nos. 8,629,111 ("Methods of Providing Therapeutic Effects Using Cyclosporine Components," issued January 14, 2014), 8,633,162 (same title, issued January 21, 2014), 8,642,556 (same title, issued February 4, 2014), 8,648,048 (same title, issued February 11, 2014), and 8,685,930 (same title, issued April 1, 2014) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defenants' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Allergan's Restasis® (cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, 0.05%, used to treat dry eye). View the complaint here.
Posted at 11:54 PM in Court Report | Permalink | Comments (0)
December 1, 2015 - Efficient patent prosecution (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Dallas Office) - 2:30 to 5:30 pm (CT) - Dallas, TX
December 2, 2015 - "USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility: An Update" (Knowledge Group) - 3:00 to 5:00 pm (ET)
December 2, 2015 - "Searching, Inventorship, & the Inventor Interview: Practical Legal & Business Considerations" (American Intellectual Property Law Association) - 12:30 - 2:00 pm (Eastern)
December 3, 2015 - "Duty of Candor, Fixing Mistakes, Ex Parte Communications, Sanctions & Professionalism Before the PTAB in Contested Proceedings" (Strafford) - 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST)
December 4, 2015 - "Trade Secrets -- A Primer For Practitioners" (Corporate Counsel Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association) - 12:00 to 1:00 pm (EST)
December 10, 2015 - "Optimal Use of Provisional Patent Applications: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid" (Technology Transfer Tactics) - 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern)
Posted at 11:33 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
FCBA Webcast on Trade Secrets
The Corporate Counsel Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a webcast entitled "Trade Secrets -- A Primer For Practitioners" on December 4, 2015 from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (EST). Charles Matson, Senior Counsel – Innovation, Procter & Gamble will moderate a panel consisting of R. Mark Halligan of FisherBroyles, LLP; David Simon, Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property, Salesforce; and Thomas A. Stevens, Corporate Counsel – Intellectual Property, DuPont. The panel will cover the basics of trade secret law, enforcement of trade secrets both in civil and criminal courts, pending federal legislation on the civil enforcement of trade secrets, and practical thoughts and considerations in deciding to patent or keep an idea as a trade secret as well as prevent trade secret theft.
Posted at 11:15 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled "Section 102 and Prior Art: Navigating the Expanded Scope of Prior Art and AIA Exceptions" on December 17, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Anthony D. Del Monaco, Doris Johnson Hines, and Thomas L. Irving of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will provide guidance to patent counsel regarding post-AIA Section 102 and prior art and offer best practices for utilizing prior art in patent applications. The webinar will review the following questions:
• How did AIA expand the definition of prior art?
• How can counsel claim -- or defend against -- post-AIA patent applications asserting priority over pre-AIA applications?
• What practices should patent counsel employ in order to utilize prior art?
Webinar on Use of Provisional Patent Applications
Technology Transfer Tactics will be offering a webinar entitled "Optimal Use of Provisional Patent Applications: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid" on December 10, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern). Timothy Lohse and Dale S. Lazar of DLA Piper will discuss the benefits and limitations of provisional applications, and the best practices for using provisional applications. The webinar will cover the following topics:
• Benefits and limitations of provisionals
• Identifying and preventing common and damaging mistakes with provisionals
• Drawings in provisionals: yes, no, or maybe
• Potential issues with "coversheet" provisionals
• Meeting written description and disclosure requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112
• Should you tie non-provisional patent applications to provisional applications?
Posted at 09:00 AM in Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (1)
Posted at 11:59 PM in Federal Circuit, Hatch-Waxman | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 11:59 AM in International IP, Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0)
Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases illustrate the need for software or computer-implemented claims to explicitly recite novel structural components or specific details for how functions are performed.
Listingbook, LLC v. Market Leader, Inc.
On November 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an opinion in the case Listingbook, LLC v. Market Leader, Inc. that held claims ineligible for patent protection under § 101. Listingbook's U.S. Patent No. 7,454,355 describes a method and system where real estate agents use computers to log onto a website and create individual client accounts containing information about each client. After logging into their accounts, clients can view properties found by the agent, tag properties for future reference, and if authorized, conduct their own searches of the real estate information database. The clients' online activity is monitored and recorded in the system.
A computer-implemented method of providing client-accessed real estate information to a real estate professional associated with a first client and a second client, and for providing professional-accessed real estate information to the first client and the second client, the method comprising:
The patent also includes a CRM independent claim and a system independent claim with a server and communications circuit, and each of these independent claims recite the steps of method claim 1.
The District Court first discussed recent uncertainty about whether a presumption of validity and standard of proof apply in cases challenging patent-eligibility under § 101. If so, Market Leader must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that none of the asserted claims meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. If not, Market Leader has a lower standard. The uncertainty arises because there is a question whether burdens of proof apply only to questions of fact, and whether a claim is directed to patentable subject matter is a question of law. There does not seem to be a controlling Supreme Court or Federal Circuit decision on this matter, and the District Court here applied both the presumption and the standard of proof in this case. As seen, however, even using the higher standard did not help the patent claims.
Using the two-step framework set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, the District Court first found the claims to be directed to an abstract idea. The District Court found that Claim 1 describes a computerized version of a "conventional interaction".
The District Court noted that Listingbook's patent specification confirms that real estate agents "conventionally" connect to a database of real estate information "to locate properties of interest for their clients," and contact each client to determine whether the client is interested in any of the resulting properties and whether the client has found any properties of interest from other sources, such as print advertisements or the Internet. Through this interaction, the agent and clients have exchanged information and collaborated in the real estate search process. The District Court found that Listingbook's invention simply places the interaction online, and the fact that Listingbook's method is performed online -- rather than in an office, over the phone, or through email -- does not change the Court's conclusion that Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Turning to the second step of the Alice framework, the question becomes whether the claims at issue contain an "inventive concept" that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Here, a generic computer is the only machine needed to perform the method of Claim 1, and "adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible."
The District Court thus found that the claims at issue in Listingbook's patent are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept to render the claims patent-eligible under § 101 of the Patent Act.
The claims here recite no novel features and really do just implement basic Real Estate agent functions over the internet. The patent has a priority date of April 27, 2000, but that is still not quite early enough to pre-date the computerized multiple listing services (MLS) of the 1970's. The claims here simply recite features that are too vague and lack details to provide an inventive concept, which now-a-days leads to being found invalid under § 101. When the claims are too vague, they are more easily considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
On November 18, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in the case Stanacard v. Rubard, LLC that also held claims ineligible for patent protection under § 101.
Stanacard's patent in this case (U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156) is for an invention on a method for routing a long distance call. Claim 1 of the Patent is a method claim, requiring as follows:
The District Court characterized the system as follows: a telephone service provider or prepaid calling service assigns to its customer (the "end user") a unique ten digit telephone number, which the caller can dial from his personal telephone (whether a land line or a cellular device) in order to reach a designated recipient. The caller associates that number ("the assigned incoming telephone number") with a particular, specified recipient (the "recipient telephone number"). When the customer dials those ten digits - no more - from his personal telephone, he is connected to the person whose number he has previously designated as the "recipient telephone number," without the need to enter a PIN or any additional information, including a country or city code.
The District Court also provided an illustrative example: suppose I am the end user. My service provider assigns me the number 555-222-1234; I tell the service provider that, when I dial those digits, I want to be connected to my best friend (the recipient), who lives in Ohio, and whose telephone number is 614-555-1213. When I dial the assigned incoming telephone number (555-222-1234) from my personal telephone number (987-654-3210) -- which number is recognized via some unclaimed but well known device like Caller ID -- the call is forwarded directly to my best friend's home telephone number (614-555-1213). I need not input any additional information in order to get the call routed to its intended recipient. The invention only works when the end user dials the assigned incoming telephone number from his own telephone.
But because a particular incoming number must correlate with a particular recipient, a service provider can assign the same incoming telephone number (555-222-1234) to thousands of different customers -- each of whom can specify a different person who should receive a call if he dials those ten digits from his phone.
The District Court commented that the claim is directed to a well-known activity that is almost as old as telephony itself -- making a long distance telephone call. The District Court noted that what plaintiff did was figure out a way to make such a call more cheaply, by dialing a ten digit local number and nothing more. He combined two activities that have long been performed, by humans and by machines -- caller ID and call forwarding -- such that the recipient of a local call (area code plus seven digit number) uses some type of caller ID to recognize who the incoming caller is, and then forwards the incoming call to its intended recipient by associating the assigned incoming telephone number with a particular recipient's telephone number. Importantly, the District Court commented that "Neither caller ID nor the method by which the call actually gets forwarded to its intended recipient (over what telephone network, using what switching facilities) is claimed." No physical aspect of this process is claimed. What is claimed is the idea of dialing only ten digits, at which point some unspecified intermediary will identify both the caller and the intended recipient of the call and connect them.
The District Court reiterated a number of times that the claims do not recite any sort of physical structure and lack details for how the functions are performed. Using the two-part test, the District Court first found that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of connecting two people via long distance telephony through the medium of using caller ID and call forwarding when a local number is dialed, rather than to a "process," "machine," "manufacture", or "composition of matter." Applying the second part of the test, the District Court found that the patent does not "specify" how "claim elements" interact to achieve a "desired result which overrides conventional practice," and thus, include no inventive concept that would save the claim.
Interestingly, here, the District Court hinted several times that had the claims recited some physical components and details for how the components function in a way different from conventional practice, then the claims would likely satisfy § 101. The concept described in the patent appears to be novel, but the claims were drafted in a way that left them too vague and lacking detail.
Also, an interesting side-note to consider for § 101 analysis is whether courts should consider some type or form of "secondary considerations" during the second step of the two-prong test (i.e., when determining whether the patent claims recite any inventive concept). In this case, the plaintiffs' expert testified that the system disclosed by the patent completely changed the calling paradigm of prepaid telecommunications by, among other things, eliminating the PIN entry as a prerequisite to placing an international telephone call and thereby solving - creatively - the major handicap of every calling card. Further, observing that persons (including plaintiff's expert) had been trying to design a less expensive and more convenient method of placing international telephone calls for "many years," the expert further testified that, "[t]he idea behind the '156 patent -- combining the customer's telephone number and the dialed local access number into a unique 20-digit combination is elegant, simple, beautiful but by no means obvious; none of us working in this field came up with the method set forth in the '156 patent, and not for the lack of trying." Lastly, the expert also testified that, "[t]he method disclosed by the '156 patent made an immediate and loud splash in the market place of prepaid telecommunications and garnered a market share away from others." The District Court noted that such evidence of secondary considerations creates a genuine issue of fact about whether the patent is or is not "obvious" within the meaning of the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 103. But, as to § 101, the District Court gave such evidence no weight.
It is curious from a patentee's perspective that claims are found to be unpatentable under § 101 if they are directed to abstract ideas AND ALSO lack inventive concept, but evidence to support inventive concept including secondary considerations has no weight for the § 101 analysis. Because the § 101 analysis is so intertwined with novelty and obviousness components, it would seem that the secondary considerations should come into play as well.
Posted at 10:40 PM in District Court, Patentable Subject Matter | Permalink | Comments (1)
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Savior Lifetec Corp.
5:15-cv-00415; filed August 21, 2015 in the Eastern District of North Carolina
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,952,323 ("Carbapenem Antibiotic," issued September 14, 1999) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Savior's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Merck's Invanz® (ertapenem, used for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated skin and skin structure infections, community acquired pneumonia, complicated urinary tract infections, and acute pelvic infections, and for the prophylaxis ofvsurgical site infection following elective colorectal surgery). View the complaint here.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Standard Chem. & Pharm. Co., Ltd et al.
1:15-cv-06353; filed August 21, 2015 in the District Court of New Jersey
• Defendants: Standard Chem. & Pharm. Co., Ltd; Stason Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Zhejiang Jinhua Conba Bio-Pharm Co. Ltd.; Tai Heng Industry Co., Ltd.
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,017,615 ("Low Hygroscopic Aripiprazole Drug Substance and Process for the Preparation Thereof," issued September 13, 2011), 8,580,796 (same title, issued November 12, 2013), 8,642,760 (same title, issued February 4, 2014), and 8,759,350 ("Carbostyril Derivatives and Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Treatment of Mood Disorders," issued June 24, 2014) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defendants' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Otsuka's Abilify® (aripiprazole, used to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia). View the complaint here.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
1:15-cv-00710; filed August 18, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,107,827 ("Nonoparticulate Megestrol Formulations," issued August 18, 2015) in conjunction with Twi's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Par's Megace ES® (megestrol acetate, used for the treatment of appetite loss, severe malnutrition, or unexplained, significant weight loss in AIDS patients). View the complaint here.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
1:15-cv-00714; filed August 18, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware
Declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010 ("Propofol Formulations with Non-Reactive Container Closures," issued July 2, 2013) in conjunction with Dr. Reddy's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Fresenius' Diprivan® (propofol injectable emulsion, used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia and sedation in certain patient populations). View the complaint here.
November 20, 2015 - 2015 Friedman Memorial Lecture on Excellence in Appellate Advocacy (Federal Circuit Bar Association) - Washington, DC
November 23, 2015 - "Double Patenting: Defeating Double Patenting Rejections and Avoiding Terminal Disclaimers" (Strafford) - 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST).
Webinar on Duties of Candor and Disclosure
Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled "Duty of Candor, Fixing Mistakes, Ex Parte Communications, Sanctions & Professionalism Before the PTAB in Contested Proceedings" on December 3, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Thomas L. Giannetti, Lead Judge, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Mercedes K. Meyer of Drinker Biddle & Reath will provide guidance to patent counsel involved in patent prosecution and contested proceedings before the USPTO on the duties of candor and disclosure; examine related issues of privilege, ex parte communications and conflicts of interest; and offer best practices for meeting duties of candor, disclosure, and privilege before the USPTO. The webinar will review the following questions:
• How does the duty of candor apply in IPRs, PRGs and CBMs?
• What enhanced duty of candor do patent counsel have under MPEP 2001.06(c)?
• What potential repercussions do patent owners and challengers face if they fail to meet their obligations of duty of candor and disclosure?
AIPLA Webinar on Inventor Interviews and Patent Searching
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will be offering a webinar entitled "Searching, Inventorship, & the Inventor Interview: Practical Legal & Business Considerations" on December 2, 2015 from 12:30 - 2:00 pm (Eastern). Kimberly Prior of Johnson & Johnson and H. Sanders Gwin of Shumaker & Sieffert will cover practical legal and business considerations for the initial inventor interview and patent searching; walk attendees through the basics of assessing client goals and preparing for an initial inventor interview, and deciding whether, what, and how to search; and equip attendees with tools for making a considered inventorship determination.