Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pat is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the American Chemical Society, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the Licensing Executives Society.

Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mosaic Brands, Inc., et al. v. Ridge Wallet LLC

Docket No. 2022-1001-2 (


December 20, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed based on description of invention “as a whole” in specification.  Anticipation finding based on inventor testimony found corroborated but grant of SJ found premature.  Invalidity of trade dress affirmed based on 9th Circuit law.

Summary: Mosaic and Ridge make “similar money-clip wallets”.  Mosaic asserted Ridge infringes its US 7,334,616 as well as its trade dress.  Ridge asserted Mosaic infringed its US 10,791,808 (also alleged infringement by Mosaic’s third-party licensees which is not
Continue Reading DC claim construction based on description of invention affirmed; anticipation reversed; trade dress invalidity affirmed

LKQ Corporation, et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Docket No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) ( (Non-Precedential)


January 20, 2023

Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed.

Summary:  LKQ appealed USPTO final written decision (FWD) holding it failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that GM’s design patent U.S. Patent D855,508 (the ‘’508 patent’) directed to an “ornamental design for the vehicle front skid bar” shown in Figs. 1-4 was anticipated or would have been obvious over the cited prior art.  LKQ sells automotive body repair
Continue Reading Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed

Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC and Ametek, Inc.

Docket No. 2021-2370 (


January 12, 2023

Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness determination of “enlarged chamber” vacated and remanded while construction of “means for driving” a rotor limitation affirmed.

Summary:  Grace appealed a DC claim construction order the found the term “enlarged chamber” indefinite and its construction of “means for driving said rotor to rotate located in at least one bottom section” of US 7,412,877 relating to pressurized devices and viscometers for oil well drilling rigs.  As a result of the DC findings,
Continue Reading DC indefiniteness finding vacated and remanded, while “means”-related claim construction finding affirmed, each based on the intrinsic evidence

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2021-2275 (


January 20, 2023

Brief Summary:   DC decision of prosecution laches (unreasonable and inexcusable delay by PMC and prejudice to Apple) affirmed.

Summary:  Personalized Media Communications (“PMC”) appealed DC finding that US 8,191,091 is unenforceable based on prosecution laches (“an equitable affirmative defense dating back to the early 1900s”), finding PMC “successfully employed an inequitable scheme to extend its patent rights.”  PMC alleged that Apple’s FairPlay digital rights management software that uses decryption keys to prevent copying songs from iTunes.  The DC jury initially
Continue Reading DC prosecution laches finding affirmed (unreasonable and inexcusable delay by PMC and prejudice to Apple)

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC
Pharm Co., Ltd. et al.
Docket No. 2021-1070 (
January 24, 2022
Second Update (January 24, 2023): Novartis petitioned SCOTUS with two questions presented:  1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 46 and principles of sound judicial administration preclude a court of appeals from adding a new judge to form a new panel and redecide a case after an original three-judge panel has already decided the case and entered its judgment; and, 2)  Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112 should be interpreted consistent with its plain text
Continue Reading Novartis appeals to SCOTUS rehearing of FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Genentech, Inc., Intermune, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., LEK Pharmaceuticals, D.D.

Docket No. 2022-1595 (


December 22, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC findings that Genetech’s disputed Esbriet® patents are invalid for obviousness and not infringed by Sandoz’s ANDA affirmed.

Summary:  Genentech (“GT”) appealed DC decision holding that: (1) GT’s Liver Function Test (“LFT”) claims are invalid for obviousness (US 7,566,729; 7,635,707; 8,592,462; and 8,609,701) (2) “Sandoz’s” generic product sales would not induce infringement of the LFT patents, and (3) Sandoz’s generic product sales would not directly infringe GT’s Drug-Drug Interaction (“DDI”) patents (US 7,816,383 and 8,013,002
Continue Reading FC panel affirms DC obviousness and non-infringement findings regarding Genentech’s Esbriet® patents

P Tech, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Docket No. 2022-1102, -1115 (IPR-2020-00649-50) ( (Non-Precedential)


December 15, 2022

Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions of obviousness of P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims affirmed. Summary:  P Tech appealed two IPR final written decisions (FWDs) finding claims 1 and 4 of US 9,192,395 and claims 1-20 of US 9,149,281 directed to robotic tissue fastening systems unpatentable for obviousness.  This opinion explained that “[t]he differences between these claims have not been argued as significant to this appeal” and “[t]herefore, they all stand or fall together.”  The ‘281 patent
Continue Reading FC panel affirms Board IPR decisions finding P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims obvious

Arius Two, Inc., Biodelivery Sci. Int., Inc. v. Alvogen PB Res. & Develop. LLC, et al.

Docket No. 2022-1394, -1449 ( (Non-Precedential)


December 21, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC obviousness findings for two patents affirmed; obviousness of certain claims vacated as DC applied “clear and convincing” to secondary considerations while only “preponderance of the evidence” standard required.

Summary:  This Hatch-Waxman case involves US 8,147,866; 9,655,843; and 9,901,539 regarding a bi-layer film containing a bioerodable mucoadhesive (BEMA) layer comprising  buprenorphine and a backing layer between the BEMA layer and the oral cavity.  BDSI sued Alvogen with
Continue Reading DC findings of obviousness of certain claims affirmed and others vacated based on secondary considerations

SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc.

Docket No. 2021-2311 (


November 9, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC grant of injunctive relief to SoClean regarding its trade dress registration affirmed. Summary:  Sunset appealed DC order granting a “narrow” preliminary injunctive (PI) relief to SoClean relating to its trade dress registration (the ‘195 registration).  The DC concluded that “that SoClean’s request to enjoin all sales of Sunset’s filters would “go[] much further than necessary” to ‘end any possible statutory violation’” and required “Sunset to clearly associate its online marketing and sales . . . with the
Continue Reading DC preliminary injunction regarding trademark / trade dress registration affirmed

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited

Docket No. 2021-2270 ( (Non-Precedential)


November 15, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, enablement, obviousness, or obviousness-type double patenting affirmed.

Summary:  Pharmacyclics and Jannsen (“Pharmacyclics”) appealed DC finding that Alvogen and Natco’s (“Alvogen’s”) ANDA to market a generic version of Pharmacyclic’s Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor Imbruvica (ibrutinib) for cancer treatment infringed several Pharmacyclic patents.  Pharmacyclic originally asserted many claims of 17 of its patents, but during the DC trial reduced
Continue Reading DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor)

Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 (


November 16, 2022

Brief Summary:   Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed.  FC panel explains that “a disclaimer in an IPR proceeding is binding in later proceedings, whether before the PTO or in court” but not “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”.

Summary:  CUPP appealed three IPR decision finding Trend Micro (TM) had shown the challenged claims of CUPP’s US 8,631,488; 9,106,683; and 9,843,595 (all pre-AIA) relating to methods for waking a mobile
Continue Reading Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Sloan Kettering v. Kite Pharma, Inc.

Docket No. 2020-1758 (


August 26, 2021 (updated November 9, 2022)

Update (Nov. 9, 2022):  SCOTUS denied Juno’s petition for certiorari (21-1566).  As summarized below, the FC reversed the DC’s original finding that Juno’s ‘190 patent provided sufficient written description (WD), the FC panel concluding “[t]he target” of the scFV “can be any target of clinical interest to which it would be desirable to induce a T cell response” (in the FC panel’s words “any scFv for binding any target”) and that the ‘190 WD “fails
Continue Reading SCOTUS denies Juno’s petition for certiorari regarding written description

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al.

SCOTUS Docket No. 21-757; FC Docket No. 2020-1074 (


November 7, 2022 Update (original FC Panel decision on February 11, 2021)

Third Update (November 7, 2022):  SCOTUS granted certiorari regarding the second question raised in Amgen’s request regarding it functional anti-PCSK9 antibody-related claims and the District Court (DC) (Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al., Civ. No. 14-1317- SLR (D. Del.), judgment entered on January 3, 2017; Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al., Civ. No. 14-1317- RGA (D. Del.), judgment entered on October 3, 2019) and
Continue Reading SCOTUS grants Amgen’s request for certiorari of lack of enablement of its anti-PCSK9 antibody claims; petition for FC en banc hearing previously denied (June 21, 2021)


Docket No. 2021-2093 (


November 1, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ of invalidity for indefiniteness based on claim construction relating to incorporation-by-reference reversed. Summary:  Finjan appealed DC grant of summary judgment (SJ) of invalidity for indefiniteness based on its construction of the claim term “Downloadable’…to be restricted to ‘small’ executable or interpretable application programs based on the definition of ‘Downloadable’ provided by a patent in the same family that was incorporated by reference into the asserted patents” (US 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 8,079,086; and 9,186,621 (all
Continue Reading DC claim construction based on definition incorporated-by-reference reversed

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) ( (Non-Precedential)


October 20, 2022

Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do not require certain order).

Summary:  Microsoft (MSFT) appealed USPTO Board IPR decision finding it did not show the challenged claims of Uniloc’s US 6,467,088 directed to techniques for updating electronic devices (e.g., assess compatibility) unpatentable for obviousness.  The claims are directed to “[a] processor-implemented method for controlling the reconfiguration of an electronic device” by “receiving information” about the device,
Continue Reading Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Shalon Weisner and Shmuel Nemanov v. Google LLC

Docket No. 2021-2228 (IPR2020-00040) (


October 13, 2022

Brief Summary:   DC decisions on patent ineligibility claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part as two of the patents arguably “recite a specific implementation of the abstract idea that purports to solve a problem unique to the Internet” (citing, DDR Holdings, FC 2014). Summary:  Mr. Weisner appealed from DC dismissal of his patent infringement suit against Google after finding all of the asserted claims of US 10,380,202; 10,642,910; and 10,394,905; and 10,642,911 that share a common specification ineligible under 35 USC
Continue Reading DC ineligibility findings for computer-related claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in part as some showed improvement of “a problem unique to the Internet”