Monthly Archives: February 2015

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Posted on February 27, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1159 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES February 26, 2015 Brief Summary: PTO decision to reduce PTA due to the filing of a supplemental IDS after filed a response to a restriction requirement was reasonable. Summary: Gilead appealed DC decision regarding … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Patent Prosecution, Patent Term Extension | Leave a comment

Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Gramin International, Inc. et al.

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1396 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA February 18, 2015 Brief Summary: Preamble determined to be a claim limitation; “clear and unmistakable statement of disavowel or disclaimer” found in the “Summary and Objects of the Invention”. Summary: Pacing appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Preamble | Leave a comment

United Access Technologies, LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC et al.

Posted on February 19, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1347 NEWMAN, BRYSON, O’MALLEY February 12, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied even though the jury could have based its verdict on one of two separate grounds reversed and remanded. Summary: United … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management et al.

Posted on February 18, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1649, 2012-1650 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES February 12, 2015 Brief Summary: “[I]nvalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘314 and ‘492 patent [was] established by issue preclusion” based on an earlier invalidation of the claims in litigation with another … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Fenner Investments, Ltd. V. Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless)

Posted on February 17, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1640 NEWMAN, SCHALL, HUGHES February 12, 2015 Brief Summary: DC claim construction and decision of noninfringement affirmed since it properly consulted the description [block diagrams and flow charts] in the ‘706 specification ‘for the purpose of better understanding … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. The New York Times Company, et al.

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1196, -1197, -1198, -1199, -1200 NEWMAN(D), CLEVENGER, DYK February 10, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent exhaustion against patentee with respect to content providers using equipment licensed to handset providers reversed as the patent rights because “infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Licensing, Patent Exhaustion | Leave a comment

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

Posted on February 12, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1301 NEWMAN(D), CLEVENGER, DYK February 4, 2015 Brief Summary: Decision determined final decision to institute IPR review is not appealable, “broadest reasonable interpretation” is proper during IPR review, and the Board correctly construed the claims and found the … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Papst Licensing GmbH v. FujiFilm Corp. et al.

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1110 TARANTO, SCHALL, CHEN February 2, 2015 Brief Summary: Five DC claim constructions were vacated as being unsupported by the claims per se, the specification and / or the file history. Summary: Papst appealed five claim constructions supporting … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

In Re Kevin R. Imes

Posted on February 2, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1206 LOURIE, MOORE, CHEN January 29, 2015 Brief Summary: PTAB affirmation of examiner’s findings of obviousness and anticipation reversed and remanded as claim/prior art interpretations not reasonable “under the broadest interpretation of [the terms] in view of the … Continue reading →

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