Monthly Archives: February 2016

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

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 16, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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.

Posted on February 15, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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.

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 10, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corporation

Posted on February 9, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2015-1146 PROST, DYK, HUGHES February 2, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim constructions found to be correct based on the claim language read in view of the specification and prosecution histories. Summary: Columbia appealed DC claim construction of three … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment

Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company

Posted on February 3, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2015-1331, 2015-1389 LOURIE, REYNA, CHEN January 29, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ to Dow of non-infringement literally or under DOE affirmed. DC findings of no indefiniteness also affirmed. Summary: Akzo appealed DC grant of SJ to … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Indefiniteness, Infringement | Leave a comment

Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Epic Pharma, LLC et al.

Posted on February 2, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Epic Pharma, LLC (Docket No. 2014-1294) Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Docket No. 2014-1296) Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Docket No. 2014-1306, -1307) Grunenthal … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Collateral estoppel, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment