Today the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
In re Clarke (Nonprecedential)
Raymond Clarke and Landec Corporation (hereinafter “Clarke”) appeal a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming, in relevant part, the unpatentability of proposed claims 1–8 and 10–15 in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/480,625 (“’625 application”). See Ex parte Clarke, 2018 Pat. App. LEXIS 8711 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Genentech, Inc. v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
Genentech, Inc. appeals from the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board collectively holding unpatentable claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,846,441 and claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,892,549. In the final written decisions, the Board construed the claim terms “an amount effective to extend the time to disease progression in the human patient” and “an effective amount” to be in comparison to no treatment. Genentech appeals, arguing that the Board’s claim constructions were erroneous and that under its proposed claim construction the claims would not have been obvious. Genentech also appeals the Board’s denial of its motion to amend in IPR2017-00731. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1295(a)(4)(A).
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Board’s decisions. The Board correctly construed the terms “an amount effective to extend the time to disease progression in the human patient” and “an effective amount.” Genentech does not challenge the Board’s obviousness conclusion under the Board’s constructions. We also hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in entering partial adverse judgment on Ground 1 in IPR2017-00731 or in denying Genentech’s motion to amend.