Monthly Archives: January 2018

Honeywell International Inc. et al. v. Fujifilm Corp. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1070, -1073 PROST, NEWMAN, STOLL January 11, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision denying attorneys’ fees affirmed since its “analysis demonstrated the totality-of-the-circumstances approach” and “losing a summary judgment motion should not automatically result in a finding of … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.

Docket Nos. 2016-2309-11 NEWMAN (D), O’MALLEY (C), REYNA January 11, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal for lack of standing because a co-owner’s ownership interests in the patent were not transferred to” AVT “under the terms of an employment agreement” and … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership | Leave a comment

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2520 DYK, LINN, HUGHES January 10, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision that Finjan’s ‘844 patent is directed to § 101 patent eligible subject matter (“a new kind of file that enables a computer system to do things it … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Patentability, Royalties | Leave a comment

Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nichia Corporation et al.

Docket Nos. 2016-1577, -1611 WALLACH, CHEN, HUGHES January 5, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding that jury obviousness determination was supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion that the requisite intent for inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: Everlight brought DJ suit … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. / USPTO (Intervenor)

Docket Nos. 2015-1944-46 (IPR2013-00601, -00602, 00636) En banc decision January 5, 2018 Brief summary: En banc FC found “no clear and convincing indication of Congress’s intent to bar judicial review of § 315(b) time-bar determinations” made by the PTO (unlike … Continue reading

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

Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company

Docket Nos. 2017-1032 DYK, REYNA, WALLACH January 5, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision following inter partes reexamination affirming rejection of Monsanto’s US 7,790,953 directed to methods for producing soybean seeds as anticipated (inherency) or obvious affirmed. Summary: Monsanto appealed PTAB … Continue reading

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

Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc., Ivax Int. GmbH v. Apotex Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1344 REYNA, WALLACH, STOLL January 4, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC claim construction of extended release coating as not “continuous”, and corresponding finding of infringement, vacated and remanded. Summary: Apotex appealed from DC construction of “extended release coating” … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment

Microsoft Corporation v. Biscotti, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2080, -2082, -2083 (IPR2014-01457, -01458, -01459) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, NEWMAN (D) December 28, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR that MSFT failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were anticipated or obvious … Continue reading

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

Microsoft Corporation v. Biscotti, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2080, -2082, -2083 (IPR2014-01457, -01458, -01459) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, NEWMAN (D) December 28, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR that MSFT failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were anticipated or obvious … Continue reading

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

Ten Most Viewed Posts of 2017

1. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. / Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (“MSD”) et al. v. NuVasive, Inc. Docket No. 2013-1576, -1577 LOURIE, DYK, REYNA (C) June 3, 2016 On remand from SCOTUS, this decision affirmed DC/jury finding of induced infringement. The … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment