• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 93,821 results

10 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner: Decision Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing of Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR 4271d

Document IPR2019-00449, No. 10 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner - Decision Denying Petitioners Request for Rehearing of Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 CFR ...
Formulations 1 and 2 also include, inter alia, a polyhydric alcohol in the form of polyethylene glycol (PEG-600) and a carboxyvinyl polymer (Carbopol 940) that acts as a gelling agent.
Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have continued to use the same amounts of ethanol and benzyl alcohol in Cartt ’865 in the absence of the 15% or 20% polyethylene glycol and the 0.8% or 0.6% carboxyvinyl polymer used in formulations 1 and 2 of Ueda.
1 Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing includes additional citations to Dr. Peppas’ declaration that were not provided in the section addressing Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on Cartt ’865 and Ueda.
Patent 9,763,876 B2 ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use the same levels of ethanol and benzyl alcohol in Cartt ’865’s benzodiazepine-based nasal spray, especially in the absence of the additional 15% or 20% polyethylene glycol and 0.8% or 0.6% gelling agent used in formulations 1 and 2 of Ueda.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that we erred in not instituting an inter partes review with respect to Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on Cartt ’865 and Ueda.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner: Decision Denying Patent Owners Request on Rehearing of Decision on Institution 37 CFR 4271d

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Patent Owner - Decision Denying Patent Owners Request on Rehearing of Decision on Institution 37 CFR 4271d (P.T.A.B. Sep...
Neurelis, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision (Paper 8) (“Decision”) instituting inter partes review of claims 1– 36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’876 patent”).
First, Petitioner did challenge the ’876 patent priority claim in contending that “the presence of any alkyl glycosides (either generally or particularly) – regardless of amount – was not disclosed, described, or enabled by [the] ’558 Provisional.” Petition 20.
Furthermore, with supporting testimony from Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas, Petitioner further asserted that the ’558 provisional’s “generic disclosure of ‘surface active agents (especially non-ionic materials)’ ... does not disclose, describe, and/or enable alkyl glycosides in general (or dodecyl maltoside in particular).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 152; Ex. 1041 ¶ 68).
As explained in Dynamic Drinkware, a petitioner has the initial burden of going forward to show that there is invalidating prior art.
On this record, Patent Owner fails to satisfy its burden of production to show entitlement to an earlier filing date.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

HAND MADE PRODUCT CO. LTD.

Docket 88632502, Trademark (Sept. 26, 2019)
ClassHair care preparations, namely, shampoos, conditioners, rinses, gels, styling sprays, styling mousses, mousse gels, styling pastes, serums, creams, liquid gels, pomades, permanent wave hair preparations, curl activators, hair oinments, hair setting lotions, hair straighteners, hair shaping and styling formulations, hair styling lotions, hair moisturizing and scalp treatment formulations, hair polishes, molding resins, aerosol hair sprays, hair cleansing formulations, hair elasticity enhancers, hair shine and support enhancers, hair texture improving agents, curl definition enhancers, hair blow-dry lotions, and hair thermal sprays; skin care preparations, namely, moisturizing lotion and sunscreen, hand creams, face creams, skin moisturizers, and skin cleansers; 001; 004; 006; 050; 051; 052; 023; 028; 044; 013; 021; 023; 031; 034
MarksHAND MADE PRODUCT CO. LTD.
Original Applicant The Vancouver Hand Made Product Co. Ltd.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

DENOUE

Docket 88628168, Trademark (Sept. 24, 2019)
Case TypeTrademark
ClassHair care preparations, namely, mousse gels, pomades, hair styling lotions, and molding resins; 001; 004; 006; 050; 051; 052
MarksDENOUE
Original Registrant The Vancouver Hand Made Product Co. Ltd.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

9 Order: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 9 Order - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019)
... due dates in the scheduling order, the parties must be cognizant that the Board requires four weeks after the filing of an opposition to the motion to amend (or the due date for the opposition, if 6 IPR2019-00451 Patent 9,763,876 B2 none ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Institution Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 314

Document IPR2019-00451, No. 8 Institution Decision - Institution of Inter Partes Review35 USC sec 314 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019)
On this record, and upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Meezan ’962’s disclosure when seeking to enhance the bioavailability of the therapeutic agents in the compositions disclosed in Gwozdz.
For the reasons stated supra with regard to claims 8–10 and 15, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner never showed any unexpected results with respect to the amount of ethanol and benzyl alcohol is not sufficiently supported by the evidence of record.
We are not persuaded that Petitioner and Dr. Peppas have provided sufficient argument and supporting evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in achieving the bioavailabilities recited in claims 34–36 of the ’876 patent when combining the teachings of Gwozdz and Meezan ’962.
Petitioner argues that, since neither Gwozdz nor Meezan ’962 provide specific dosing regimens for benzodiazepines/diazepam, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the similar reference of Cartt ’784, titled “Nasal Administration of Benzodiazepines,” for these teachings.
On this record, and upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Cartt ’784’s disclosure when seeking dosing regimens for the compositions disclosed in Gwozdz and Meezan ’962.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2019-00449, No. 7 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)
Critical to its obviousness arguments, Petitioner asserts that “none of the recited ranges (either separately or combined) have been shown to have any criticality or to result in unexpected effects.” Id. at 57; see id. at 45.
None of the compositions set forth in Tables 12A and 12B contain ethanol and benzyl alcohol in combination, and only three of the disclosed compositions contain ethanol.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Institution Decision: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2019-00450, No. 8 Institution Decision - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)
A patentee may define a claim term in a manner that differs from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, any special definitions must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
The Examiner subsequently issued a final rejection of the claims on November 21, 2011, disagreeing with the Applicants “teaching away” arguments and concluding that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to nasally administer a benzodiazepine composition that contains only tocopherol or tocotrienol, an alcohol and optionally one or more alkyl glycosides.” Id. at 514–515.
In subsequent Office Actions of July 14, 2016, March 30, 2017, and October 19, 2017, the Examiner maintained his position that Sonne’s broad disclosures would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed formulations.
Petitioner contends that because the nosedrop of DS-11 “may be too viscous to spray,” one of ordinary skill in the art would have followed Sonne’s teachings and reduced the viscosity of the solution by replacing the triacetin co-solvent with ethanol.
Likewise, in a July 14, 2016 Office Action in the ’439 application, the Examiner stated that Sonne teaches “[v]iscosity can be reduced by the addition of co-solvents such as ethanol” and that “[a] co-solvent such as ethanol can be used in order to optimize the formulations bioadhesion, sprayability, and viscosity.” Ex. 1007, 3096–3097 (citing Ex. 1013, 3:65– 66, 6:47–53).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

LANEY

Docket 88505987, Trademark (July 9, 2019)
ClassElectrical and electronic audio equalizer apparatus; electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus; sound reinforcement systems comprised of amplifiers; sound amplifiers; electrical sound amplifiers; electrical amplifiers for use with musical instruments; electro-acoustic amplifiers; power amplifiers for use in sound reproduction; sound amplifiers; valve amplifiers; tube amplifiers; valve amplifiers for sound amplification; solid-state sound amplifiers; solid-state sound amplifiers for sound amplification; hybrid sound amplifiers; hybrid sound amplifiers for sound amplification; combination sound amplifiers; head sound amplifiers; pre-amplifiers; public address systems comprised of sound amplifiers; public address systems comprised of passive speaker enclosures; public address systems comprised of powered speaker enclosures; public address systems comprised of mixer sound amplifiers; guitar amplifiers; acoustic guitar amplifiers; loudspeakers; mixing desks in the nature of electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus; audio mixing apparatus in the nature of electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus; audio mixing desks in the nature of electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus; mixing consoles in the nature of electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus; master audio mixing desks in the nature of electronic sound mixing, processing and synthesizing apparatus for use in an audio recording studio; loudspeaker cabinets; electric switches and footswitches for use with amplifiers, musical instruments and sound reproduction equipment; sound and musical effects apparatus and equipment, namely, electronic effect pedals for use with sound amplifiers and sound effect pedals for musical instruments; electrical and electronic audio interfaces for use with musical instruments, amplifiers and loudspeakers; sound effects pedals for musical instruments; batteries and power packs; chargers for batteries and battery power packs; USB interfaces in the nature of USB hardware; stands, bags and cases, all specifically adapted for use with loudspeakers and amplifiers; 021; 023; 026; 036; 038
MarksLANEY
Original Registrant Headstock Distribution Limited
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

LANEY

Docket 88505981, Trademark (July 9, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

METHOD FOR CULTIVATING A CROP, CROP PRODUCTION UNIT AND CROP PRO...

Docket 16/465,694, U.S. Patent Application (May 31, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

PIPE HANGER

Docket 16/463,699, U.S. Patent Application (May 23, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

TISSUEMILL

Docket 88423105, Trademark (May 9, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

SKINMILL

Docket 88423117, Trademark (May 9, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

CARTILAGEMILL

Docket 88423121, Trademark (May 9, 2019)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>