Monthly Archives: March 2017

In Re: Ethicon, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1696 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, DYK January 3, 2017 Brief Summary: The FC panel concluded that the “teaching of all of the required components of the claims” by the cited art “support the Board’s combination” of the same “to … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Prism Technologies LLC, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum et al.

Docket No. 2016-1456, -1457 TARANTO, LINN, CHEN March 6, 2017 Brief Summary: Jury finding of infringement and award of $30 million as a reasonable royalty upheld. Settlement agreement with AT&T was properly admitted as reasonable royalty evidence. Jury/DC properly relied … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing | Leave a comment

Technology Properties Limited LLC, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN March 3, 2017 Brief Summary: DC claim construction modified due to prosecution history disclaimer, and decision vacated and remanded. Disclaimer not found where arguments were made to the court but … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Bayer Cropscience AG et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-1530, -1623 MOORE, TARANTO, CHEN March 1, 2017 Non-precedential Update:  SCOTUS denied review (12/4/17) Brief Summary: DC confirmation of international arbitration tribunal’s award to Bayer of $455 million for breach of contract (under French law) and patent infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC (“CAD”) v. The Trustees of The Univ. of Pennsylvania (“Penn”)

IPR2015-01835 (US 8,618,135B2) Final Written Decision March 6, 2017 Brief Summary: CAD’s petition dismissed as obviousness not shown by a preponderance of the evidence (e.g., prior art hyperlink not shown to be functional, no reasonable expectation of success, and persuasive … Continue reading

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

Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al. v. Ericsson, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1766, -1794 MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for anticipation and non-infringement vacated; determination that Most Favored Licensee Provision of Agreement only applied to patents owned as of the date thereof. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Infringement, Licensing, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Natl. Assn. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1353 (CMB2014-00100, CBM2015-00009, CBM2015-00027) LOURIE (D), PLAGER, TARANTO February 21, 2017 Update: Petition for rehearing en banc denied (June 6, 2017) Brief Summary: Board characterization of ‘191 patent as a CBM patent reversed and vacated because the statutory … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews | Leave a comment

In re: Depomed, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1378 (IPR2014-00652) DYK, REYNA, STOLL February 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board conclusion of obviousness affirmed (prior art “suggests the desirability” of the claimed combination of PEO and HPMC). Summary: Depomed appealed the Board’s final decision after IPR … Continue reading

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

Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1475 NEWMAN, BRYSON, MOORE February 28, 2017 Brief Summary: Certain findings of obviousness vacated due to lack of explanation/support by the Examiner and the Board. Summary: Icon appealed Board decision following inter partes reexamination of Icon’s US 7,789,800 … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. (“LAB”) V. Eli Lilly and Company

Docket No. 2016-1518 (IPR2014-00752) NEWMAN, BRYSON, MOORE February 28, 2017 Brief Summary: Board conclusion of obviousness vacated and remanded for determination of whether there was an “apparent reason to combine the prior art references” in view of correct claim construction. … Continue reading

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