Monthly Archives: January 2017

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1544 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES January 9, 2017 Brief Summary: Phigenix found not to have Article III standing for its appeal of PTAB final written decision after IPR. Summary: Phigenix appealed PTAB final written decision after IPR that claims … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

  The USPTO released statistics on AIA petitions (11/30/16) which are available here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/aia_statistics_november2016.pdf The PTO data includes Covered Business Method (CBM) and Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) but the Inter Partes Review (IPR) is by far the most-used pathway. Some of … Continue reading

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

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation

Docket No. 2015-1944 (IPR2013-00601, affirmed with precedential opinion; see Summary below) Docket No. 2015-1945 (IPR2013-602, affirmed without opinion (Rule 36 judgment)) Docket No. 2015-1946 (IPR2013-00636, affirmed without opinion (Rule 36 judgment)) DYK, BRYSON, REYNA September 16, 2016 Update (1/4/17): Rehearing … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

In re: Marcel Van Os et al.

Docket No. 2015-1975 (Ser. No. 12/364,470) NEWMAN (D), MOORE, WALLACH January 3, 2017 Brief Summary: Board obviousness decision reversed due to lack of “explicit and clear reasoning” regarding motivation to combine. Summary: Van Os appealed PTAB rejection of its claims … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re: Ethicon, Inc., A Johnson & Johnson Company

Docket No. 2015-1696 (USPTO Appeal Nos. 95/000,542 and 95/000,552) NEWMAN(D), LOURIE, DYK January 3, 2017 Brief Summary: Board finding of obviousness of claims directed to vascular stent affirmed. Summary: Ethicon appealed PTAB decision in a merged inter partes reexamination regarding … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. 3COM et al. / Intel Corp.

Docket No. 2016-1477, -1481 MOORE, WALLACH, STOLL December 28, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC claim construction affirmed because “NorthPeak unambiguously disclaimed a broader scope during reexamination.” Summary: Northpeak appealed DC claim construction of terms of its (twice ex parte reexamined) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

John D’Agostino v. MasterCard International Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1592, -1593 (IPR2014-00543, IPR2014-00544) TARANTO, LINN, STOLL December 22, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB claim construction vacated; conclusions regarding disclosure of prior art found to be supported by substantial evidence. Summary: D’Agostino appealed PTAB decision after IPR (filed by … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment