Monthly Archives: July 2018

GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1894, -1936 (IPR2015-01078, -01080) REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES July 27, 2018 Brief summary: Board FWDs finding that GoPro did not show Contour’s US 8,890,954 and US 8,896,694 invalid for obviousness because a GoPro catalog distributed a trade show is … Continue reading →

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

ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.

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

Docket No. 2017-1601 PROST, NEWMAN (D), LOURIE July 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC conclusion of obviousness affirmed (e.g., “a strong showing of obviousness may stand ‘even in the face of considerable evidence of secondary considerations’”). Summary: ZUP appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Epistar Corp., et al.

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

Docket No. 2016-2576 to 2581, 2016-2591 to 2595 PROST, MOORE, REYNA July 25, 2018 Brief summary: DC denial of Everlight’s motion for JMOL that is invalid for lack of enablement (§ 112) reversed (the FC panel explaining it “can safely … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement | Leave a comment

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al.

Posted on July 25, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2502, -2505, -06, -07 TARANTO, PLAGER (D), CHEN July 20, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding Interval’s claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Interval appealed DC decision that claims 15-18 of US 6,034,652 “fail to recite … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

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

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

Docket No. 2018-1638 through -1643 (multiple IPRs) DYK (C), MOORE, REYNA July 20, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision that Allergan’s assignment of its patents to Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe did not allow the Tribe to terminate IPR proceedings based on … Continue reading →

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

Carl M. Burnett v. Panasonic Corporation et al.

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

Docket No. 2018-1234 (Non-precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, REYNA July 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC holding that Mr. Burnett’s claims are invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: Mr. Burnett appealed DC holding claims 1 and 9 … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Blackbird Tech LLC et al. v. ELB Electronics, Inc. et al.

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

Docket No. 2017-1703 PROST, MOORE, REYNA (D) July 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision of non-infringement based on its claim construction vacated and remanded because, e.g., the FC panel disagreed that the “fastener limitation should be imported into the claim”. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Endo Pharmaceutical Solutions, Inc., Bayer et al. v. Custopharm Inc.

Posted on July 18, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1719 MOORE, LINN, CHEN July 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision that Endo’s/Bayer’s claims relating to Endo’s Aveen® were not proven invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., the prior art did “not inherently disclose benzyl benzoate as a co-solvent … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

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

Docket No. 2017-1671 (several others) (IPR2015-00545-48, -00551, -00554, -01903) NEWMAN, LOURIE, REYNA July 13, 2018 Brief summary: Board obviousness decision in several final written decisions affirmed (“no reason to exercise any discretion to remand the non-instituted claims or grounds sua … Continue reading →

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

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.

Posted on July 12, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SCOTUS Docket No. 17-1229 FC Docket No. 2016-1284, -1787 DYK, MAYER, O’MALLEY May 1, 2017 Brief Summary: In its May decision, an FC panel reversed the DC and found the asserted claims invalid under the § 102(b) on-sale bar, the … Continue reading →

Posted in On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment