Monthly Archives: April 2016

U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al. (Apple, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Sony, Toshiba, J.C. Penny, Rent-A-Center, Marvell Semi., Intel)

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1640, -1641 TARANTO, LINN, HUGHES April 25, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision granting Appellees motion for SJ of invalidity affirmed based on claim construction. Summary: U.S. Ethernet (“USEI”, successor in interest to 3Com) appealed DC decision granting … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1553 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL April 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction rejected “because it eliminates whole aspects of the claimed design”. DC exclusion of expert witness found not to be an abuse of discretion because of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Design Patents, Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc.

Posted on April 22, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1585, 2015-1586 IPR2013-000407 (8,408,598), IPR2013-00411 (8,408,343) REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN April 5, 2016 Brief Summary: Board claim construction of ‘343 claim 7 reversed (“We do not see how the claim language can mean anything else without obvious strain. The … Continue reading →

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

Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., NKA Cardflo, Inc.

Posted on April 20, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1562 NEWMAN, REYNA, WALLACH April 5, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision denying of a joint motion (with Plastic Jungle) to vacate the DC “judgment of patent invalidity [based on § 101] insofar as the judgment[] was with prejudice” … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Collateral estoppel | Leave a comment

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1079 DYK, MOORE, STOLL April 7, 2016 Update: Cert. denied 1/17/17 (16-489) Brief Summary: DC refusal to grant a new trial under FRCP 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(3) (fraud) after false expert testimony reversed and remanded. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Complex Innovations, LLC v. Amgen Inc.

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

IPR2016-00085 U.S. Pat. No. 7,829,595 B2 April 13, 2016 Brief Summary: Complex Innovations (CI) requested IPR of claims 1-25 of Amgen’s US 7,829,595B2 relating to secondary hyperparathyroidism (cinacalcet (Sensipar®)) denied. Summary: Complex Innovations (CI) requested IPR of claims 1-25 of … Continue reading →

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

Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Posted on April 13, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1202, -1203 PROST, DYK, TARANTO April 8, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision finding claims to method for amplifying and analyzing DNA sequences invalid under § 101 affirmed under the two-step Alice/Mayo test. Summary: GTG appealed DC grant of … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al.

Posted on April 8, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1298 REYNA, MAYER, CHEN April 5, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision that High Points suit was precluded by equitable estoppel affirmed. Summary: High Point appealed from DC grant of SJ that equitable estoppel and laches preclude the suit. … Continue reading →

Posted in Equitable estoppel | Leave a comment

SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony / Google / Motorola / Microsoft

Posted on April 7, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1253 MOORE, REYNA, WALLACH April 1, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction and infringement reversed (the DC “and SimpleAir would equate ‘data feeds’ with ‘data channel[s],’ but this interpretation is implausible” in view of the specification.) Summary: Google … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Microsoft Corporation et al. / Google Inc. v. Geotag, Inc.

Posted on April 6, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1140 LOURIE, WALLACH, STOLL April 1, 2016 Brief Summary: DC found to have jurisdiction under Federal Circuit law (28 USC § 1338(a)), not Third Circuit law, because the “question is unique to patent law”. It also found no … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment