Monthly Archives: June 2014

Augme Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Yahoo! Inc.

Posted on June 27, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1121, -1195 MOORE, SCHALL, REYNA June 20, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision regarding claim construction (means-plus-function limitation indefinite) and noninfringment of Augme’s patents affirmed. Yahoo! patent found not indefinite because the meaning is “clear on its face”. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corporation, et al.

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1397 NEWMAN, RADER, DYK June 19, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ to HTC of non-infringement (literal and under DOE) affirmed based on claim construction determination. Summary: Gemalto appealed DC grant of SJ to HTC of non-infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1241 NEWMAN, RADER, DYK June 6, 2014 Brief Summary: STC could not involuntarily join Sandi to its suit against Intel because “the right of a patent co-owner to impede an infringement suit brought by another co-owner is a … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Infringement, Inventorship, Licensing | Leave a comment

Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1476 MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES June 13, 2014 Brief Summary: “Integrator means” limitation in claim relating to a computer controller (e.g., allegedly like the Nintendo Wii RemoteTM) found indefinite by DC for failure to disclose a corresponding algorithm; FC … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1306 PROST, PLAGER, CHEN June 12, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision that claim encompassing BMS’s hepatitis B drug entecavir, (marketed as Baraclude®) would have been obvious because modification of lead compound to replace an oxygen with a carbon-carbon … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Michelle K. Lee and Quad/Tech, Inc.

Posted on June 12, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2012-1630, -1631 LOURIE, BRYSON, HUGHES June 9, 2014 Brief Summary: Certain claims were held obvious by the examiner and affirmed by the Board by a combination of references, while others were not. The opinion explains that the Board … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Reexamination, Written description | Leave a comment

Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Apotex Inc. et al. and Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Posted on June 11, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247, -1249 PROST, REYNA, CHEN June 10, 2014 Brief Summary: DC determination that two patents relating to the use of the prostaglandin F-2-alpha (PGF) analog bimatoprost to grow eyelash hair were not obvious reversed and vacated. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

Posted on June 9, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1377 PROST, RADER, HUGHES June 4, 2014 Brief Summary: Consumer Watchdog’s appeal regarding the PTAB decision affirming the validity of WARF’s US 7,029,913 directed to human embryonic stem cell cultures dismissed for failure to show an injury sufficient … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes | Leave a comment

K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC

Posted on June 6, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1549 LOURIE, DYK, WALLACH May 27, 2014 Brief Summary: Board decision of non-obviousness affirmed because evidence of claimed element not in the record. Judge Dyk’s dissent argued this decision “will have substantial adverse effects on the examination process” … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al.

Posted on June 5, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 12-786 Supreme Court of the United States June 2, 2014 Brief Summary: Liability for inducement (§271(b)) must be predicated on direct infringement (“under §271(a) or any other statutory provision”). Summary: Akamai is the exclusive licensee of a patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment