This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in it the court affirms the PTAB’s decision over a partial dissent by Judge Linn. The nonprecedential opinions come in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. (Precedential)
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,687,454 (the “’454 patent”), owned by Indivior UK Limited (“Indivior”). The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) held that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as anticipated, but that DRL failed to demonstrate that claim 8 is anticipated. See Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys S.A. v. Indivior UK Ltd., No. IPR2019-00329, 2020 WL 2891968 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2020) (“Decision”). Indivior appeals from the Board’s decision holding that claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable, and DRL cross-appeals the Board’s decision holding that DRL failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claim 8. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
LINN, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
The majority—dismissing the long-standing guidance on written description support for claimed ranges in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) and ignoring the factually indistinguishable case of Nalpropion Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., 934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—incorrectly concludes that claims 1, 7 and 12 of the ’454 patent do not have written description support in the ‘571 application and are thus anticipated by Myers. Because the majority’s decision rests on an improper reading of paragraph 65 and the embodiments disclosed in Tables 1 and 5 of the ’571 application, applies an overly demanding standard for written description for ranges, and fails to follow our precedent in Wertheim and Nalpropion, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion.
Brittex Financial, Inc. v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to cancel two trademark registrations. Brittex Financial, Inc. v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., Cancellation No. 92060888 (TTAB Sep. 30, 2020) (Board Op.). We reverse the Board’s priority determination, which formed the sole basis for its denial of the petition, and remand for further proceedings.
Williams v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Richard F. Williams appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) that affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), denying him entitlement to an earlier effective date for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We vacate and remand.