Monthly Archives: August 2017

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC

Docket No. 2016-1706-10, -1712, 1715 (IPR2013-00540, -00541-45, -00550) NEWMAN, LINN, MOORE August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board found to have “abused its discretion when it refused to admit and consider [the expert’s] trial testimony and…refused to explain its decision.” Summary: … Continue reading

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

In re: David Walter

Docket No. 2016-2256 MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY August 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision on indefiniteness of the term “block-like” affirmed because, e.g., it “is a term of degree, without objective criteria in the patent’s intrinsic record for establishing the … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

In re: Stepan Company

Docket No. 2016-1811 LOURIE (D), MOORE, O’MALLEY August 25, 2017 Brief summary: Board affirmance of examiner’s rejection of Stepan’s claims as obvious vacated and remanded because, e.g., “[t]he Board failed to explain why it would have been ‘routine optimization’”. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland L.P.

Docket No. 2016-2297 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH August 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction (preamble is not a limitation), willfulness, and enhanced damages ($1m) conclusions affirmed. Summary: Holland appealed the DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction, willfulness, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2254 O’MALLEY, HUGHES (D), STOLL August 15, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that VM’s US 5,953,740 relating to computer memory systems was directed to ineligible subject matter reversed. Summary: Visual Memory (VM) appealed DC dismissal of VM’s infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Docket No. 2016-1123 (IPR2014-00070) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY August 7, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision that Personal Audio’s ‘504 claims were anticipated and/or obvious affirmed. EFF found to have standing to defend PTAB decision since Personal Audio was appellant and the … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

AIA America, Inc. et al. v. Avid Raiopharmaceuticals / U. Penn.

Docket No. 2016-2647 NEWMAN, LOURIE, HUGHES August 10, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision was affirmed because “there is no right to a jury trial for attorney’s fees under § 285”. Summary: AIA appealed DC award of § 285 attorney’s fees … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2179 DYK, BRYSON, CHEN August 10, 2017 Brief summary: Amgens’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and petition for a writ of mandamus dismissed and denied, respectively, since DC denial of Amgen’s motion to compel discovery is “reviewable from … Continue reading

Posted in Biosimilars, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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