Monthly Archives: February 2016

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994 PROST, DYK, REYNA February 26, 2016 Update: See Oct. 7, 2016 en banc opinion reversing this opinion. Brief Summary: DC decisions were affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part. Notably, Samsung’s appeal of DC denial of JMOL of non-infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

Docket No. 2014-1719 (IPR2013-00067) CHEN, MAYER, STOLL February 11, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision denying Nike’s motion to amend claims affirmed because it “failed to meet its burden of establishing patentability of substitute claims 47-50”; obviousness decision vacated since “Board … Continue reading

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

TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Company, 3M Company

Docket No. 2014-1646 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Findings of invalidity based on prior public use / obviousness, non-infringement, inequitable conduct, and trebeled damages for antitrust violations affirmed. Summary: Transweb sued for DJ of invalidity and non-infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Antitrust, Inequitable Conduct, Public Use, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Convolve, Inc. et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp., et al.

Docket No. 2014-1732 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ based on its construction of “user interface” affirmed; grant of SJ based on its construction of “controller” reversed; and finding “liability is precluded by intervening … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble, Prosecution History Estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Rosebud LMS Inc. et al. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated

Docket No. 2015-1428 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL February 9, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ to Adobe as not liable for pre-issuance damages under 35 USC § 154(d) because it had no actual notice of the published patent application affirmed. … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, Royalties | Leave a comment

TriReme Medical, LLC v. AngioScore, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1504 PROST, DYK, CHEN February 5, 2016 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of TriReme’s suit for correction of ownership of patents AngioScore claims to own exclusively reversed and remanded for consideration of whether consultant invented subject matter that was … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Inventorship | Leave a comment

TriVascular, Inc. v. Shaun L.W. Samuels

Docket No. 2015-1631 MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH February 5, 2016 Brief Summary: Board claim construction correct (e.g., no “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer during prosecution) and decision of no obviousness affirmed (e.g., substitution “would destroy the basic objective of [Todd’s] barbs”). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment