Monthly Archives: March 2017

TMC Fuel Injection System, LLC v. Ford Motor Company

Docket No. 2016-2122 PROST, WALLACH, STOLL March 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of noninfringement of US 7,318,414 relating to fuel injection systems to Ford on the basis of prosecution history disclaimer (PHD) affirmed (“even if there … Continue reading

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

Lupin Ltd. et al. v. Pozen Inc.

IPR2015-01775 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,865,190B2) February 28, 2017 Brief Summary: Pozen’s claims found not obvious as Lupin did not show by a preponderance of the evidence the limitation requiring that “release of at least a portion of said naproxen is … Continue reading

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

In re: Steven C. Chudik

Docket No. 2016-1817 DYK, REYNA, STOLL March 27, 2017 Brief Summary: Board affirmance of Examiner’s rejection of Mr. Chudik’s claims as anticipated reversed since “prior art that must be modified ‘to accomplish the function performed by the patent in question’ … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102) | Leave a comment

Tomita Technologies USA, LLC et al. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2016-2015 PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of no infringement of means-plus-function limitation after consideration of “function-way-result” and “insubstantial differences” tests affirmed. Summary: Tomita appealed DC holding on remand (Tomita Techs., FC 2014) … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

University of Utah v. Max-Planck et al.

Docket No. 2016-1336 O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH March 23, 2017 Brief Summary: DC finding that this case was not “exceptional” under § 285 and thus denying Max-Planck’s motion for attorney fees of about $8 million affirmed since there is no “precise … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Inventorship | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Financial Company et al.

Docket No. 2016-1077 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN March 7, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) affirmed under Fourth Circuit law and finding of ineligibility under under § 101 affirmed under the two-step Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Patentability | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC, et al. v. Biogen MA Inc.

Case No. IPR2015-01993 (US 8,339,514 B2) Final Written Decision March 21, 2017 Brief Summary: Board found CAD V failed to show obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence as Biogen presented persuasive evidence of unexpected results (“the magnitude of the … Continue reading

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