Monthly Archives: May 2017

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.

Posted on May 30, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2006 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES May 26, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel determined it lacked jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) or § 1295(c)(2) because “the order appealed from is itself non-final”. Summary: Pulse appealed from DC’s award of prejudgment interest … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Damages, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Rivera et al. v. International Trade Commission and Solofill, LLC (Intervenor)

Posted on May 24, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1841 REYNA, LINN, CHEN May 23, 2017 Brief Summary: ITC decision of no § 337 violation because the asserted claims to a beverage brewer are invalid for lack of written description affirmed. Summary: Rivera appealed ITC holding that … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Importation, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Written description | Leave a comment

Mylan Insitutional LLC and Apicore US LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.

Posted on May 23, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1645 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA May 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of preliminary injunction and finding of infringement Apicore’s “process patents” under the DOE reversed since the function-way-result test not appropriate under this chemical case. Grant of PI … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG

Posted on May 19, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2233 (IPR2015-00150) WALLACH, TARANTO, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: Board FWD of obviousness vacated and remanded because it failed to “set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail”. Summary: Rovalma appealed PTAB IPR Final Written Decision finding the … Continue reading →

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

Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

Posted on May 18, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2016-00172 U.S. Pat. No. 8,889,135B2 May 17, 2017 Final Written Decision (IPR granted May 17, 2016) Update: See summary of May 16, 2017 FWD finding claims 1-5 unpatenable. See also July 6, 2017 FWD in IPR2016-00408 and IPR2016-00409 (both requested … Continue reading →

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

AIPLA Legislative Proposal and Report on Patent Eligible Subject Matter

Posted on May 17, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

May 12, 2017 The AIPLA issued a proposed revision to § 101 (“Proposal”) that seeks to “creat[e] a new framework with clearly defined statutory exceptions”, “provide a clear, objective test that will result in appropriately broad eligibility”, “expressly reaffirm[] the … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Posted on May 16, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1599 MOORE, LINN, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ on non-infringement to Apple affirmed since “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be relied on to support a finding of … Continue reading →

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

NOVA Chemicals Corporation, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company

Posted on May 15, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1576 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC award of attorney fees to Dow affirmed as NOVA’s litigation position was found to be “objectively baseless” under Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: NOVA appealed DC award of … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees, Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.

Posted on May 11, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1830 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 10, 2017 Brief Summary: No error found with the Board’s authority to reexamine even though LG withdrew since LG submitted the request and “was still involved in the proceedings at the time the … Continue reading →

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

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

Posted on May 10, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1750 REYNA, MAYER, HUGHES May 9, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB’s incorporation of “any applicable United States FDA standard” into the term “aseptic” where “the specification twice defines the term ‘aseptic’ as the United States ‘FDA level of … Continue reading →

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