Monthly Archives: June 2016

Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC

Docket No. 2015-1533 NEWMAN, DYK, WALLACH June 15, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB decision that the claims would have been obvious was affirmed, the FC panel finding a motivation to combine and no teaching away (only criticism regarding an “optimal design … Continue reading

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

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (USPTO)

No. 14-446 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS (Justice Breyer)) June 20, 2016 Brief Summary: PTO decision whether or not to institute IPR is non-appealable under §314(d) and PTO’s use of broadest reasonable claim construction standard in IPR is proper. Summary: This … Continue reading

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

Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation, et al.

Docket No. 2015-1574 PROST, LINN, TARANTO June 21, 2016 Brief Summary: The FC panel concluded that the continuing application may be filed on the same day the parent issues, reversing the DC decision holding that it must be filed at … Continue reading

Posted in Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

Genzyme Therapeutics Products Ltd. Partnership v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1720, -1721 IPR2013-00534, -00537 MOORE, BRYSON, REYNA June 14, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision after IPR finding Genzyme’s claims invalid as obvious affirmed. Summary: Genzyme appealed Board obviousness findings regarding its US 7,351,410 and 7,655,226 directed to methods … Continue reading

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

SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1346, -1347 NEWMAN (C/D), CHEN, STOLL June 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Board claim constructions affirmed except as to claim 4 since it changed its construction in the final written decision without letting the parties respond. Summary: Following IPR … Continue reading

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

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. / Stryker Corporation et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.

SCOTUS Docket Nos. 14-1513, -1520 June 13, 2016 Brief Summary: FC judgments finding neither Halo nor Stryker subject to enhanced damages under § 284 since the Seagate test “is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1129 NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL June 6, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim constructions based on specification and prosecution history found not to be erroneous and the judgment of noninfringement affirmed. Summary: Indacon appealed DC construction of the terms “alias” … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment