Monthly Archives: March 2018

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

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.

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.

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

SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC

Docket No. 2016-2738 LOURIE, REYNA, CHEN March 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of SimpleAir’s infringement complaint against Google as barred by claim preclusion vacated and remanded since the DC did not compare “the claims of the ‘838 and ‘048 … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2315, -2341 MOORE, BRYSON, HUGHES March 8, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of § 101 eligibility affirmed as “the inventor” here “transformed the process into an inventive application”; jury determinations of infringement and damages affirmed for the … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Lost Profits, Patentability, Royalties | Leave a comment

Par Pharmaceutical et al. v. Novartis AG

Case No. IPR2016-00084 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,665,772 B2) Final Written Decision (Jan. 11, 2018) Brief summary: PTAB concluded “Par’s articulated lead compound is insufficient to establish the obviousness of any of the challenged claims” encompassing Novartis’s everolimus. Summary: Par challenged … Continue reading

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

Capital Security Systems, Inc. v. NCR Corporation, et al.

Docket No. 2017-2368 PROST, MOORE, STOLL March 7, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: FC panel reversed the DC finding that “ascertains an apparent signature” is indefinite as it would be “understood in light of the specification…with reasonable certainty”, but agreed with … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment