The Patent Trial and Appeal Board wrongly invalidated claims of a patent related to flash drive data storage, the Federal Circuit said Aug.

27, remanding the case so the PTAB could determine whether the non-volatile memory patent was invalid based on prior art.

invalidating patent claims-80

has ruled in favour of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc and Sanofi, finding that Amgen’s asserted patent claims for antibodies targeting PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) are invalid based on a lack of enablement.“[This] decision by the US District Court for the District of , Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Regeneron.

“Praluent was developed using Regeneron’s proprietary science and technology and the judge has confirmed our position by issuing this ruling.”This ruling has overturned portions of an earlier jury verdict upholding the validity of three claims.

Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of Epigenomics AG to be materially different from any expected results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

Epigenomics AG is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

So, the patentee limited the claim to only 2 parameters – other than what examiner had found).

These particular parameters were present in the patent’s description and also in the provisional application, but not in the non-patent document, having the earliest date.

After the T-Mobile decision, Sprint unsuccessfully requested that the Federal Circuit recall the mandate.

However, the court did issue a statement that recall was “unnecessary” because the “mandate does not alter how the district court should decide the preclusive effect of the T-Mobile ruling, which did not exist in May 2017.” Another important element here a big question about whether the T-Mobile invalidity applied to all of the claims at issue in Sprint (the Federal Circuit retrospectively said yes).

In fact, an experienced person would relate to this when I say: In many cases, we do not have bang-on results.

So, one needs to know the ‘unconventional’ ways that one can take to get to those results.

It had two priority documents taking earliest priority from a non-patent document (the other document (provisional application) had a later date).