Monthly Archives: April 2018

Richard J. Baker v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (Nintendo of America, Inc.)

Docket No. 2017-2357 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 9, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of SJ of noninfringement to MSFT et al. based on its construction of the claim term “remote” based in part on prosecution history estoppel affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Knowles Electronics LLC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Docket No. 2016-1954 NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, WALLACH April 6, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction and affirmance of examiner’s obviousness rejections following reexamination requested by Analog Devices affirmed. FN2 explains that the PTO had the right to intervene after Analog … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

IPR2017-01923 (US Pat. No. 7,976,838 B2) April 4, 2018 Decision to Insitute IPR Brief summary: Pfizer request for institution of IPR of Genentech’s ‘838 patent related to the TNFalpha inhibitor rituximab (Rituxan) on obviousness grounds granted. Summary: Pfizer challenged claims … Continue reading

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

Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1554, -1556, -1557 (IPR2015-01201; IPR2016-00209, -00962) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 2, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s obviousness determination following IPR affirmed because, e.g., Raytheon did “not explain why the resulting device” (of the prior) “would be rendered inoperable … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

EMED Technologies Corp. v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2017-1547 (IPR2015-01920) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 3, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB claim construction and finding that EMED’s claims to a needle protector are unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness affirmed (“supported by substantial evidence”). Summary: EMED appealed PTAB … Continue reading

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

In re: Nordt Development Co., LLC

Docket Nos. 2017-1445 MOORE, TARANTO, STOLL February 8, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision based on construction of “injection molded” as a product-by-process limitation vacated and remanded as “the structural nature of ‘injection molded’ can be gleaned from the plain claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Product-by-Process | Leave a comment

Sophos Limited v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Docket Nos. 2017-1567 (IPR2015-01405) PROST, O’MALLEY, TARANTO March 28, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board obviousness decision after IPR remanded for reconsideration “under a proper” claim construction (e.g., “the Board’s understanding is ‘divorced from the specification’”). Summary: Finjan challenged various claims … Continue reading

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