Monthly Archives: October 2018

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) v. Google LLC

Docket No. 2017-1135 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 9, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding certain of DET’s claim ineligible under § 101 affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part (e.g., claims “not abstract, but rather directed to a specific improved method for navigating through complex three-dimensional … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

IPR2017-01122 (Final Written Decision) October 3, 2018 Brief summary: Genentech’s claims 1-11 and 14-17 of US 7,892,549 B2 related to Herceptin® (the humanized anti-ErbB2 antibody trastuzumab) shown obvious by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: Celltrion challenged claims 1-11 and … Continue reading

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

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid

Docket No. 2017-1690 O’MALLEY, REYNA, HUGHES October 9, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ of invalidity of Roche’s diagnostic method and primer claims under § 101 affirmed (“[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1959, -2009 WALLACH, LINN, HUGHES October 4, 2018 Brief summary: TTAB’s decision refusing registration of RF’s marks following Frito-Lay’s opposition affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded (“highly descriptive” marks, “TTAB failed to provide any reasoning for its conclusion that the … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.

Docket No. 2017-1555, -1626 (IPR2015-00826) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STOLL September 28, 2018 Brief summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remaned because the one-year time bar under § 315(b) barred institution (The difference here from Click-to-Call is “that Bennett’s complaint was involuntarily … Continue reading

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

Natural Alternatives Int., Inc. v. USPTO

Docket No. 2017-1962 PROST, MOORE, REYNA October 1, 2018 Brief summary: Board affirmance of examiners rejections affirmed as NAI was not entitled to an earlier priority date from a chain of applications because an intervening CIP disclaimed priority to the … Continue reading

Posted in Priority | Leave a comment

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2265, -2380 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY September 28, 2018 Brief summary: DC holding that Apple infringed WARF’s patent reversed. DC grant of SJ of no anticipation affirmed. Summary: Apple appealed DC holding that it infringed WARF’s US 5,781,752 (expired … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble, Software | Leave a comment