Monthly Archives: June 2015

Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1048, 2014-1061, 2014-1062, 2014-1063 NEWMAN, MOORE, REYNA June 23, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility affirmed since claims are directed to “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known” and do not qualify as an “inventive concept” under … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

G.D. Searle LLC, et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1476 PROST, BRYSON, HUGHES June 23, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting affirmed; no § 121 safe harbor for divisional application because it was filed as a continuation-in-part (CIP) and could not retroactively … Continue reading

Posted in Reissue | Leave a comment

Kimble et al. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

SCOTUS Docket No. 13-720 June 22, 2015 Brief Summary: Under Brulotte (US 1964), a patent licensing agreement cannot extend patent royalties beyond the patent expiration date. Summary: Marvel agreed to buy Kimble’s patent for a Spider Man toy in exchange … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing, Royalties | Leave a comment

Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC et al. (en banc re: means-plus-function)

Rehearing en banc re: means-plus-function (original Nov. 5, 2014 decision at 770 F.3d 1371 (FC 2014) withdrawn) Docket Nos. 2013-1130 MOORE, LINN, REYNA June 16, 2015 Brief Summary: Summary: The FC heard the § 112, para. 6 means-plus-function issue of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Opinion following remand from SCOTUS: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570 MOORE, MAYER(D), WALLACH June 18, 2015 Update: Prior FC decision (723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) vacated by SCOTUS (135 S.Ct. 831 (2015); FC remand opinion June 18, 2015 Brief summary: The term “molecular … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Cephalon, Inc., Acusphere, Inc. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC, Celgene Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1422, -1442 WALLACH, MAYER, CHEN June 17, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on “widely accepted definition”, a textbook and expert testimony affirmed (patentees did not act as their own lexicographers). Summary: Acusphere appealed DC construction … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment

Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee (USPTO)

Docket No. 2014-1542, -1543 PROST, LOURIE, GILSTRAP (DJ) June 16, 2015 Brief Summary: “Broadest reasonable interpretation” standard proper during IPR (in re Cuozzo); however, certain claim construction determinations vacated as inconsistent with claim language and specification. Board’s anticipation finding regarding … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment

Sealant Systems Int., Inc. / Accessories Marketing Inc. v. TEK Global et al.

Docket No. 2014-1405, 2014-1428 DYK, O’MALLEY, WALLACH June 11, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: AMI determined to have standing since it was added after Sealant filed the request for DJ regarding the ‘110 patent but before an infringement claim was made … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Sequenom, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144 REYNA, LINN (C), WALLACH June 12, 2015 Update:  Petition for Rehearing en banc denied 12/2/15; Cert. denied 6/27/16 Brief Summary: Method claims for amplifying and detecting fetal DNA in maternal serum or plasma deemed patent ineligible … Continue reading

Posted in Method claims, Patentability | Leave a comment

OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1696 TARANTO, MAYER (C), HUGHES June 11, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision that claims to computer-implemented “method[s] of pricing a product for sale” were no more than abstract ideas and patent ineligible affirmed. Summary: OIP appealed DC decision … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment