Monthly Archives: September 2017

NFC Technology, LLC v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Posted on September 29, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-1808 (IPR2014-01198) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 20, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD of invalidity for obviousness reversed and remanded as sufficient evidence corroborated inventor’s testimony regarding conception, and it must decide whether a prototype embodied the claimed … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In Re: Cray Inc.

Posted on September 28, 2017 by

Docket No. 2017-129 LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 21, 2017 Brief summary: Cray was found not to the meet the FC’s venue requirements (e.g., employee’s home office was not a “regular and established place of business”) and the writ of mandamus … Continue reading →

Posted in Venue | Leave a comment

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A.

Posted on September 26, 2017 by

Case No. IPR2016-00712 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,927,592 B2) Final Written Decision September 21, 2017 Brief summary: FWD concludes Mylan showed the ‘592 claims are invalid for obviousness. Summary: The ‘592 patent is one of three patents listed on the FDA … Continue reading →

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

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.

Posted on September 25, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-1795 NEWMAN (C/D), DYK, TARANTO September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of JMOL to Motorola affirmed with respect to invalidity but reversed as to direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) (e.g., “the end user must be … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc./Ottomoto/Otto Trucking (Defendants), Anthony Levandowski (Intervenor)

Posted on September 21, 2017 by

Docket No. 2017-2130 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of Uber’s motion to compel arbitration of litigation with Waymo affirmed. Summary: Uber appealed DC denial of its motion to compel arbitration of litigation with Waymo. Uber … Continue reading →

Posted in Arbitration | Leave a comment

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc./Ottomoto (Defendants), Anthony Levandowski (intervenor), and Lyft, Inc. et al. (Movants)

Posted on September 20, 2017 by

Docket No. 2017-2235, -2253 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL September 13, 2017 Brief summary: Mr. Levandowski’s petition for writ of mandamus was denied because, e.g., he could not show protection under attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Summary: Waymo sued Uber et … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Discovery, Privilege | Leave a comment

Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. OSMI, Inc. et al. (“Stellar”)

Posted on September 19, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-2641 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since Stellar only took action against Allied’s distributors in MX but no action against Allied (in MX or the US). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC et al.

Posted on September 18, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-2287 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES September 8, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB obviousness conclusion affirmed (30% reduction limitation is “an observed result on an old process”). Summary: Southwire appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision that claims 1-42 of US 7,557,301 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (“Kraft”) v. Kellogg North America Co. et al.

Posted on September 15, 2017 by

2016-2082, -2084 PROST, REYNA (D), TARANTO September 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ for obviousness and no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: Kraft appealed grant of SJ to Kellogg of invalidity for obviousness of the asserted claims of Kraft’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Lifetime Industries, Inv. V. Trim-Lok, Inc.

Posted on September 14, 2017 by

2017-1096 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of Trim-Lok’s motion to dismiss Lifetime’s infringement complaint reversed and remanded since, e.g., LT adequately “alleged that an agent of Trim-Lok installed the seal onto the RV”. Summary: Lifetime … Continue reading →

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