Monthly Archives: September 2017

NFC Technology, LLC v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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”)

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