Photo of Takuma Nishimura

Takuma Nishimura

Subscribe to Takuma Nishimura's Posts

Takuma Nishimura is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Contact:Read more about Takuma Nishimura

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.

Background

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia. Janssen sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ’906 Patent), after Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Invega Sustenna. The ’906 Patent covers specific dosing regimens for Invega Sustenna.

Following two bench trials and a prior Federal Circuit review, the only remaining issue was Teva’s obviousness challenge to the ’906 Patent.Continue Reading Claiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness

Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference set; (7) transmitting a reference hyperlink; (8) receiving an electronic response from the reference; (9) storing the electronic response from the reference; and (10) generating a recommended reference list.Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims

In Great Concepts, LLC, v. Chutter, Inc., the Federal Circuit decided on whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can cancel a trademark based on the inclusion of false statements in a declaration to obtain an incontestable status for the trademark.Continue Reading Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation

In Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, v. Brunswick Corporation No. 2022-1765, pending cite (Fed. Cir. August 24, 2023), Brunswick petitioned for an inter partes review of Volvo’s U.S. Patent No. 9,630,692 patent (“the ’692 patent”) challenging all claims as obvious. Brunswick filed its challenge on the same day as the launch of its competing product – the Bravo Four S. The ’692 patent relates to a stern-mounted motor design with forward, bow-facing propellers. It was undisputed that both Volvo and Brunswick have competing products that embody the ’692 patent.Continue Reading Speed Kills or can at Least Provide a Motivation to Combine

We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023.Continue Reading 2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries