Monthly Archives: June 2018

Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. v. iOnRoad, Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1984 LOURIE, CLEVENGER, REYNA June 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision following inter partes reexamination affirming the examiner’s rejection of Mobileye’s claim for estimating a time-of-contact between a moving vehicle and an obstacle” as obvious affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry

Docket No. 2017-1169, -1170 (IPR2015-00780, -00783) TARANTO, PLAGER, CHEN June 11, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that “[t]he record does not show that the Board fully considered all of the relevant factors” in determining whether slides presented at a … Continue reading

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

PTO Memorandum “Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals”

PTO Memorandum regarding Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al. Update: In the previously summarized Vanda decision (April 2018; FC Docket Nos. 2016-2707, -2708), the FC panel found claims to “[a] method for treating a patient….comprising the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

PGS Geophysical AS v. USPTO

Docket No. 2016-2470, -2472, -2474 (IPR2015-00309, -00310, -0311) WALLACH, TARANTO, STOLL June 7, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision of obviousness affirmed. PTAB decision to only review certain claims and grounds included in IPR Petition not to be error in view … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

Case Nos. IPR2017-00378, -00380, and -00390 (Final Written Decisions regarding US 8,562,999) June 8, 2018 Brief summary: Claims 1-17 and 19-22, but not claim 18, of Wyeth’s US 8,562,999 relating to its PREVNAR® vaccine found invalid for obviousness in three … Continue reading

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

Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC

Docket No. 2017-2330 PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO June 11, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of no exceptionality and denial of attorney’s fees under § 285 affirmed since, e.g., “Stone’s litigating position did not ‘stand[] out from others.’” Summary: Cook appealed DC … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Kite Pharma, Inc. v. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1647.Rule_36_Judgment.6-5-2018.1.pdf Docket No. 2017-1647 (IPR2015-01719) Judgment (non-precedential) June 6, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB 2016 decision that Kite did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that SKI’s claims of US 7,446,190 B2 to chimeric T-cell receptors (“CAR-T”) invalid for … Continue reading

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