Monthly Archives: August 2018

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.

Posted on August 31, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2102 REYNA, BRYSON, HUGHES August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Jury finding of infringement and no invalidity of CW’s ‘151 claim affirmed but “implied waiver” / unenforceability arguments remanded; finding of infringement of ‘536 claim reversed. Summary: Apple appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement | Leave a comment

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al.

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

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2015-1242 (IPR2013-00312) O’Malley, Taranto, Stark (with en banc footnote 3) August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that § 315(b) one-year time bar does not apply where earlier complaint was … Continue reading →

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

Luminara Worldwide, LLC. vs. USPTO

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

Docket No. 2018-1629, -1631, -1633 IPR2015-01352, -10656, -01657, -01658 LOURIE, DYK, TARANTO August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Board finding that § 315(b) time-bar (IPR must be filed within one year of complaint servce) vacated as the bar applies to complaint … Continue reading →

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

In re: Power Integrations, Inc.

Posted on August 24, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-144, -145, -146, -147 IPR2017-01903, -01904, -01944, -01975 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, CHEN August 16, 2018 Brief summary: PI’s petitions petitions for a writ of mandamus challenging the PTAB’s decisions denying institution of IPRs of three patents denied (“this court … Continue reading →

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

In re: Rembrandt Technologies LP et al. v. Comcast et al.

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

Docket No. 2017-1784 O’MALLEY, MAYER, REYNA August 15, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding this litigation exceptional under § 285 affirmed; $51 million fee award vacated and remanded as the DC “awarded all fee fees with no explanation whatsoever of a..causal … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., Rakuten Commerce, LLC

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

Docket No. 2017-1980 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES August 15, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to BuySeasons because all of BSG’s asserted claims are invalid as ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: BSG appealed DC holding that all asserted claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC (Appellee)) / Hyosung TNS Inc. et al. (intervenors)

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

Docket No. 2017-2553 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY August 15, 2018 Brief summary: ITC finding that Diebold violated § 337 by importing components of automated teller machines (“ATMs”) that infringe means-plus-function claims reversed as invalid for indefiniteness (§ 112, para. 6). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

In Re: Facebook, Inc.

Posted on August 15, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2524 PROST, MOORE, STOLL August 14, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming examiner’s rejection of Facebook’s claims for obviousness and anticipation reversed since prior art reference did satisfy the claim “rule requiring the image elements to be … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd.

Posted on August 13, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1828 (IPR2016-00046) PROST, DYK, O’MALLEY August 3, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that JTEKT “failed to establish an actual injury sufficient to control Article III standing” (injury must be ‘concrete and particularized’” and not “conjectural or hypothetical”; … Continue reading →

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

Akorn, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Posted on August 9, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2015-01205 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,114,319) FWD dated November 22, 2016 Fed. Cir. (2017-1511) Update: Federal Circuit panel affirmed this decision on August 8, 2018 (2017-1511). Brief Summary: PTAB final decision found all claims of US 6,114,319 relating to Alcon’s ophthalmic … Continue reading →

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