Monthly Archives: June 2017

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Docket No. 2015-2011 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN June 27, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision of no written description vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred in relying on “conclusions about the Roche 454 platform to conclude that Illumia teaches only … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Cisco, Avaya LG, Toshiba, VIZIO, Hulu, Verizon) v. Straight Path IP

Docket No. 2016-2004 et al. (12 IPRs) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK June 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB final written decisions following IPR proceedings of US 6,108,704; 6,009,469; and 6,131,121 finding of no obviousness based on construction of the “is connected” … Continue reading

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

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, et al. (USPTO)

Docket No. 2016-1794 PROST, DYK, STOLL (D) June 23, 2017 Update (Aug. 31, 2017):  Decision vacated and appeal reinstated, to be heard en banc Brief Summary: DC denial of USPTO’s request for attorney’s fees under § 145 reversed (“the applicant … Continue reading

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

Richard Storer et al. v. Jeremy Clark and United States (intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1802 (appeal from PTAB No. 105,981) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK June 21, 2017 Brief Summary: Board interference decision that Storer’s (Idenix’s) provisional application was not enabled for the claims affirmed because, e.g., “the art, at least with respect to … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Interference | Leave a comment

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

SCOTUS Docket No. 16-341 May 22, 2017 Brief Summary: SCOTUS held “that a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute” (28 USC §1400(b)) and not as defined by the broader definition … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NexLearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2170, -2221 MOORE, SCHALL, HUGHES June 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of NexLearn’s infringement and breach of contract due to breach of confidentiality relating to an NDA affirmed (e.g., “[w]hile a Kansas resident could purchase ZebraZappsfrom Allen’s … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC

Docket No. 2016-1766 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Patent directed at detecting myeloperoxidase release as a sign of cardiovascular disease ineligible under § 101. DC decision of no contributory or induced infringement affirmed since CCF fell “short … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1984 (IPR2014-01558) MOORE, CLEVENGER, CHEN June 15, 2017 Brief Summary: Board finding that prior art patent sharing inventor not overcome by uncorroborated inventor declaration affirmed. EmeraChem found not to have had sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard … Continue reading

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

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

IPR2017-00378, IPR00380, IPR2017-00390 U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,999 B2 June 13, 2017 Decision to Insitute IPR Brief Summary: Board decision to institute IPRs against Wyeth’s (Pfizer’s) US 8,562,999 B2 relating to the vaccine Prevenar®. Summary: Each of the ‘378, ‘380 and … Continue reading

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

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Technology, LLC

Docket No. 2016-22260 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN June 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of lack of written description affirmed (“a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [WD] requirement”). Summary: Purdue appealed PTAB refusal of … Continue reading

Posted in Interference, Written description | Leave a comment