Monthly Archives: January 2018

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Covidien LP v. Hologic, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1008 DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 30, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s decision of one anticipation and two obviousness rejections affirmed; another obviousness rejection reversed and remanded as being based on non-analogous art. Summary: S&N appealed Board decision affirming … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC

Docket No. 2017-1039 (IPR2015-00592) DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 25, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that dependent claims were not shown to be unpatentable vacated and remanded “[s]ince the patentability of [independent] claims 1 and 17 was the sole basis for … Continue reading

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH (C/D) January 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of eligibility under § 101 and it denial of JMOL for anticipation and infringement (based on alleged incorrect claim construction) affirmed. Summary: LG appealed ED … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Anthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp.

Docket No. 2017-1239 (IPR2016-00917) NEWMAN(D), DYK, O’MALLEY January 24, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel affirmed Board decision as “§ 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR … Continue reading

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

In Re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., New York Univ.

Docket No. 2017-1257 PROST, REYNA, WALLACH January 23, 2018 Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the Board obviousness-type double patenting decision since “a patent owner can[not] retroactively bring the challenged patent within the scope of the § 121 safe harbor … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Reexamination, Reissue | Leave a comment

In Re: Dominick Theresa

Docket No. 2017-1920 PROST, SCHALL, TARANTO January 17, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision affirming examiner’s obviousness rejection affirmed (e.g., Theresa “offers not more than bare contradiction of the Board’s motivation to combine analysis”). Summary: Theresa appealed Board affirmation of … Continue reading

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

Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1188, -1189 PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK January 19, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel found DC denial of Globus’s Rule 59(e) and 50(b) to be within its discretion and not abused, and its grant of SJ of noninfringement to be … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Infringement | Leave a comment

Liqwd, Inc., Olaplex LLC v. L’Oreal et al.

Docket No. 2017-2295 DYK, REYNA, TARANTO January 16, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision denying PI vacated and remanded as based on erroneous claim construction (e.g., (“[c]ontext is central in claim construction”). Summary: Assignee Liqwid and exclusive licensee Olaplex (together … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Amerigen Pharm. Ltd. and Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Jannsen Oncology, Inc.

IPR2016-00286 and IPR2016-01317 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,882,438 B2) Final Written Decision January 12, 2018 Brief summary: Jannsen’s patent related to treating prostate cancer using “a therapeutically effective amount of abiraterone acetate” (Zytiga®, $2.3 billion in 2016 sales) and prednisone invalidated … Continue reading

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

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment