PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. v. TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Inherent limitations of the prior art must be commensurate in scope with the actual limitations claimed

by | Dec 3, 2014 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation

Inherent limitations of the prior art must be commensurate in scope with the actual limitations claimed in order to establish anticipation or obviousness. Here, for example, an inherent food effect advantage of nanosized formulations of a particular drug was found to...

VEHICLE IP, LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context described

by | Nov 18, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context in which it is described. Here, for example, the specification stated that the claimed navigational way points “may be” used as intermediate points on the route, which...

WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Confirming that extrapolations from known data are operational is not sufficient to preclude obviousness

by | Nov 18, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

Merely confirming that extrapolations from known data are operational is not sufficient to preclude a conclusion of obviousness. Here, for example, a monthly dosing regimen in line with suggested but untested extrapolations from daily dosing regimens was found to be...

ANTARES PHARMA INC. v. MEDAC PHARMA INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Specification must “clearly and unequivocally” disclose invention claimed on reissue as a separate invention

by | Nov 17, 2014 | [sub] reissue requirements, Adequate Disclosure

The “original patent” requirement is a heightened standard compared to the separate written description requirement in that the specification must “clearly and unequivocally” disclose the particular invention claimed on reissue as a separate invention. Here, for...

MALICO, INC v. LSI LOGIC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – An obviousness rationale is still required when prior art is clearly capable of being modified as claimed

by | Nov 17, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

An obviousness rationale is required even when it is readily apparent that the prior art is physically capable of being modified to meet the limitations claimed. Here, for example, the fact that a prior art heat sink retaining device was physically capable of being...