Teleflex announced on August 22, 2022 that it has reached an agreement to acquire Standard Bariatrics. Teleflex agreed to acquire Standard Bariatrics for a cash payment of $170 million at closing and could pay up to an additional $130M if Standard Bariatrics reaches certain commercial milestones.
IN RE KILLIAN
Before Taranto, Clevenger, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Section 101 jurisprudence is still sound post-Dobbs.
Boston Scientific announced on August 15, 2022, that it acquired Obsidio, Inc. for an undisclosed fee. Obsidio has technology called the Gel Embolic Material (GEM™), which is used in minimally invasive blood vessel embolization. According to its press release, Boston Scientific intends to expand its interventional oncology and embolization portfolios.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. V. EAGLE PHARMACETICALS, INC.
Before Moore, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: An ANDA was held not to infringe asserted claims because the ANDA specifies pH ranges that fall outside of those recited in the asserted claims.
IN RE: PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Chen.
Summary: The USPTO policy of refusing to consider Requests for Director Rehearing of decisions denying institution of IPR and PGR does not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES LP V. INGENIO, INC., DBA KEEN, ETHER, THRYV, INC.
Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Summary: Ingenio’s IPR petition was partially instituted before SAS (overruling the practice of partial institutions), and a final written decision was issued after SAS. IPR estoppel applied to a claim that was not addressed in a final written decision because the invalidity ground reasonably could have been brought, and petitioner chose not to seek remand in view of SAS.
LSI CORPORATION v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Determining whether a patent or application’s disclosure is “by another” under § 102(e) requires evaluating the relied-upon portions of the disclosure to determine if the source of this disclosure is truly “by another;” a Board’s determination of untimeliness must be appealed even if the Board reaches the merits of the argument.
Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Despite cancelling a claim prior to assignment, assignor estoppel still applied to bar invalidity defenses against a related claim because the assignor warranted the validity of the cancelled claim and the cancelled claim was not directed to subject matter materially broader than the related claim.
IN RE MCDONALD
Before Newman, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: When applying for reissue, a patent applicant may not recapture subject matter that was intentionally surrendered to overcome a § 101 rejection.
THALER V. VIDAL
Before Moore, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: Under the Patent Act , an “inventor” must be a natural person. Therefore, an AI system cannot be an inventor.
