Monthly Archives: April 2017

Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1106 (IPR2013-00535) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 25, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: FC panel modified the construction of “precursor” in claim 9 and therefore reversed and vacated/remanded the Board’s anticipation and obviousness conclusions, respectively. Obviousness conclusion regarding claim 19 … Continue reading

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

Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation v. Power Integrations, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1002 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA April 21, 2017 Motion Panel Order (Precedential) Brief Summary: PTAB “ordered to dismiss the reexamination of claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the ‘972 patent” (for which a final decision has already been … Continue reading

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

In re Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1402 PROST, DYK, STOLL April 14, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board construction of “scroll and gesture” affirmed. Its construction of “rubberbanding” and the associated finding that the prior disclosed the same vacated and remanded. Summary: Apple appealed PTAB … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Phil-Insul Corp., DBA IntegraSpec v. Airlite Plastics Co., Formtech, LLC

Docket No. 2015-2037 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH April 14, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision of collateral estoppel (CE) affirmed. Rule 36 judgment can serve as a basis for CE decisions. The FC panel also declined IS’s “request to reconstrue” the disputed … Continue reading

Posted in Collateral estoppel | Leave a comment

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1729 TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 17, 2017 Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on prosecution history estoppel affirmed (“patentee’s use of ‘i.e.,’ in the intrinsic record…is often definitional”). DC non-obviousness conclusion affirmed. Royalty calculation affirmed. FC found “disclaimer … Continue reading

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

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2015-2037 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH April 14, 2017 Brief Summary: DC/jury finding of noninfringement by Apple affirmed based on construction of Core Wireless’s means-plus-function claims. Summary: Core Wireless (CW) appealed jury finding that Apple did not infringe claim 17 … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Novartis AG, et al. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited et al.

Docket No. 2016-1352 (IPR2014-00784, IPR2015-00518) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 12, 2017 Brief Summary: Board decision of invalidity for obviousness of Novartis’ ‘283 patent relating to fingolimod (marketed as Gileyna® for treating MS) affirmed (Novartis had a chance to be heard … Continue reading

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