INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A.

Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claims of a continuation application were anticipated because they were not entitled to the filing date of a parent application that failed to support the ranges of numerical values claimed in the continuation.

ROHM SEMICONDUCTOR USA, LLC v. MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: An arbitration agreement, which incorporated the California Code of Civil Procedure by reference, delegated determining arbitrability and supported dismissal of a district court action.

GALPERTI, INC. v. GALPERTI S.R.L.

Before: Moore, Prost, Taranto. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Evidence of use of a term even without a showing of secondary meaning, by any third party, is relevant to demonstrate that an assertion of substantially exclusive use was false.

APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC.

Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from Qualcomm, in light of a prior decision with identical operative facts

On November 3, 2021 the FDA issued draft guidance titled “Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions.” The final version will eventually replace the FDA’s “Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices,” originally released in May 2005.

CELGENE CORP. v. MYLAN PHARM. ET AL.

Before Prost, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the District of New Jersey.

Summary: In Hatch-Waxman litigation: (1) infringement occurs where the ANDA is submitted and not where the patentee received notice of the ANDA submission; (2) the presence of an affiliated entity or employees in the district is insufficient to show a regular and established place of business; and (3) pleadings must explain how a defendant was involved in the ANDA submission to support a claim for infringement.

UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE v. CLEAR-VU LIGHTING LLC

Before Reyna, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s obviousness decision because the inventors succeeded where the prior art failed and there could be no expectation of success based on the failed attempts of the prior art.

On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for patent claims related to an “artificial valve for repairing a damaged heart valve.” St. Jude Medical LLC (“St. Jude”) filed for an inter partes review (IPR) at the PTAB for U.S. Patent No. 6,821,297, entitled “Artificial Heart Valve, Implantation Instrument and Method Therefor,” owned by Snyders Heart Valve LLC (“Snyders”).

Bioventus recently announced that its shareholders approved its agreement to acquire Misonix. Bioventus agrees to pay Misonix shareholders either 1.6839 shares of Bioventus class A common stock or $28.00 for each share of Misonix common stock held. The amount paid to Misonix shareholders results in an approximate valuation of $518 million for Misonix, based on share prices from around the time the acquisition agreement was reached. With the completion of this acquisition, Misonix will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bioventus.

BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION V. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC Before Judges Dyk, O’Malley, and Hughes. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A challenger must demonstrate an injury in…