Monthly Archives: February 2018

Nalco Company v. Chem-Med, LLC et al. (24 other parties)

Docket No. 2017-1036 MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY February 27, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of Nalco’s complaint for failing to properly allege infringement reversed and remanded since “[t]he ‘purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Contributory Infringement, Doctrine of equivalents, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1124 DYK, LINN, HUGHES February 26, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision that “drive” is limited to a variable speed drive reversed (improper reliance on disclosed embodiment), as was reversal of Examiner’s prior art rejection that was dependent … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

IPR Nos. 2016-01127 through -001132 U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,685,930B2; 8,629,111 B2; 8,642,556 B2; 8,633,162 B2; 8,648,048 B2; 9,248,191 B2 (“Allergan patents”) USPTO Decision Denying Tribe Motion to Terminate Brief summary: Board denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss the IPR proceedings … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Licensing | Leave a comment

Google LLC v. At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust

Docket No. 2016-2727, -2729 IPR2015-00657, -00660, -00662, -00666 LOURIE, WALLACH, STOLL February 22, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision that At Home’s claims related to web page banner ads would not have been obvious affirmed. Summary: Google appealed two final … Continue reading

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

Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company

Docket No. 2017-1494 MOORE, WALLACH, STOLL February 16, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility of ATS’s claims affirmed (e.g., “representative claims simply do not require” particular RFID components or arrangement of the same). Summary: ATS appealed DC … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Motorola Mobility LLC

Docket No. 2016-1249 (IPR2014-00452) NEWMAN, BRYSON, MOORE February 20, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision that Arendi’s claims are invalid for obviousness affirmed under the PTAB’s “alternative” holding accepting prosecution history disclaimer (initial claim construction ignoring that disclaimer found to be … Continue reading

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

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC/Genzyme et al. v. Immunex Corp.

IPR2017-01879 and -01884 (US 8,679,487 B2) February 15, 2018 Brief summary: Sanofi’s IPR petitions against Immunex’s ‘487 patent directed to anti-IL-4R antibodies instituted on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. Sanofi’s previously denied IPR petition found not to prohibit filing of … Continue reading

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