Monthly Archives: March 2018

In re: Gregory A. Brandt, John B. Letts, Firestone Building Prods. Co., LLC

Posted on March 29, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2601 LOURIE, REYNA, TARANTO March 27, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision affirming examiner’s obviousness rejection affirmed (e.g., because the ranges “abut one another,…there is no meaningful distinction” that was not overcome “with persuasive argument and/or evidence”). Summary: Brandt … Continue reading →

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

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC

Posted on March 28, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1118, -1202 O’MALLEY, PLAGER, TARANTO March 27, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded “Google’s copying and use of” Oracle’ Java code in its Android platform “was not fair as a matter of law”, and reversed and remanded the … Continue reading →

Posted in Copyright, Software | Leave a comment

Google LLC v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

Posted on March 27, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2509-12 (IPR2015-00343, -00345, -00347, -00348) DYK, SCHALL, REYNA March 26, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s finding that Google did not show anticipation or obviousness vacated and remanded for reconsideration based on the FC panel’s claim construction (agreeing with … Continue reading →

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

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Posted on March 26, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2523, -2524 (IPR2015-00369, -00373) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, REYNA March 23, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB FWDs finding DSS’s claims obvious reversed because the PTAB “did not provide a sufficient explanation for its conclusions”. Summary: DSS appealed PTAB final written decisions … Continue reading →

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

Sarif Biomedical LLC v. Brainlab, Inc.

Posted on March 23, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1103 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES March 21, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC denial of attorney’s fees under § 285 was affirmed since, e.g., Sarif acted in “good faith”. Summary: Sarif sued Brainlab for infringement of claims 1-9 of US … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

In re: Power Integrations, Inc.

Posted on March 22, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1304 MOORE, MAYER, STOLL March 19, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction and resultant anticipation decisions regarding PI’s ‘876 patent reversed (“[t]he board has had two opportunities to come up with a sustainable interpretation that differs from the … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC

Posted on March 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1101 (IPR2013-00440) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO March 19, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded PTAB was not required to considered Dell’s new evidence presented for the first time at oral argument, and PTAB decision that Hipp does not anticipate … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on March 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1389 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL March 14, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB conclusion that S&N’s PCT application (“Emanuel PCT”) was not an invalidating obviousness reference against a related patent but instead “has sufficient written description to make it a priority … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Priority | Leave a comment

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc.

Posted on March 19, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1290 (IPR2015-00195) DYK, REYNA, CHEN March 13, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB FWD following IPR finding certain claims of US 6,475,435 B1 relating to aseptic food packaging unpatentable for obviousness affirmed (e.g., the prior art “fairly suggests maintaining” the … Continue reading →

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

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1193 (IPR2015-00249) DYK, REYNA, CHEN March 13, 2018 Brief summary: Citing Omega Eng’g (FC 2003) holding “that the same construed meaning should generally attach to the same claim term in related patents”, the FC panel vacated and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment