Monthly Archives: July 2015

SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1712 O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, HUGHES July 10, 2015 Brief Summary: FC found no abuse of discretion in DC’s denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 USC § 285, concluding that “[e]ven under the new, lower standard for … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Lupin Limited v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Case IPR2015-00405 U.S. Pat. No. 6,436,989B1 July 9, 2015 Brief Summary: Petition to institute IPR ordered for claims 1, 4-8 and 9 of Vertex’s US 6,436,989B1 encompassing fosamprenavir calcium (marketed as Lexiva). The petition was denied as to claims 2, … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment

In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC

Docket No. 2014-1301 NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, DYK July 8, 2015 Brief Summary: Decision by PTO on whether or not to institute IPR is “final and nonappealable”. Broadest reasonable interpretation of claims is the appropriate standard during IPR. Summary: Cuozzo appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR) | Leave a comment

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1194 NEWMAN, PLAGER, HUGHES July 9, 2015 Brief Summary: FC determined it “has the authority to review whether the ‘350 patent is within the PTAB’s § 18 authority” if the issue is “part of or a predicate to … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability | Leave a comment

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1469, 2014-1504 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES July 2, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision of no on-sale bar under 35 USC § 102(b) reversed because production of drug batches by outside party using an embodiment of the patented method over … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Bank, et al.

Docket No. 2014-1506 DYK, REYNA, CHEN July 6, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision regarding patent ineligible subject matter affirmed (“simple instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer” or “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd., v. Michelle Lee (USPTO)

Docket No. 2014-1280 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO July 2, 2015 Brief Summary: Daiichi’s requests and petitions regarding section 154 (prosecution-related) patent term adjustment (PTA) determinations for two patents denied because the same were filed outside of the two-month (request for reconsideration) … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Term Extension | Leave a comment