This month we highlight a district court opinion from Judge Dyk,
sitting by designation, denying a preliminary injunction in a
brand-vs-brand litigation, and a lengthy district court opinion
from Judge Bryson, sitting by designation, addressing joint
infringement, inherent anticipation and obviousness, and written
description.
CASES
Federal Circuit
PTAB Got Priority Wrong
Otonomy, Inc. v. Auris Medical, AG,
08/01/18 (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1850, 2017-1880)
In this appeal from an interference, the court first held that
Auris was not entitled to the benefit of its PCT priority date
because the PCT application does not teach the requisite suspension
of fluoroquinolone, but rather a dissolved solution.
Moreover, Auris was not entitled to a priority date earlier than
the preliminary amendment in which a claim matching the
interference count was presented, because there was no written
description absent that amendment. Accordingly, the court
reversed the priority
