Monthly Archives: June 2014

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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