Monthly Archives: December 2018

Glasswall Solutions Ltd. et al. v. Clearswift Ltd.

Posted on December 28, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1407 LOURIE, LINN, TARANTO December 20, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC dismissal of suit for failure to state a claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)) after the asserted claims are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under § 101 affirmed (e.g., … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Posted on December 21, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1276 PROST, DYK, MOORE December 14, 2018 Brief summary: DC denial of Wright’s motion for attorney’s fees under § 285 affirmed (e.g., “fee awards are not to be used ‘as a penalty for failure to win a patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. et al. (JH) v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC (PET)

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

Docket No. 2016-2700 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL December 7, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of JH’s DJ action against reversed and remanded since PET’s letters to the Banks charging infringement established minimum contacts in the ND TX and PET did not … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC et al. (Gutride Safier LLP)

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

Docket No. 2017-2414 WALLACH, LINN, HUGHES September 28, 2018 Brief summary: DC award of fees under § 1927 (“baseless complaint”) against Gutride reversed. Summary: Gutride (a law firm representing AlphaCap) appealed the DC’s “award of fees under 28 USC § … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment

In Re: David Tropp

Posted on December 14, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2503 PROST, CLEVENGER, MOORE December 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims for lacking a sufficient written description under § 112 vacated and remanded because the Board did discuss in its opinion … Continue reading →

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

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

Docket Nos. 2017-2490, -2494 (IPR2016-00331) MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES December 10, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s conclusions VirnetX’s claims were shown obvious by Apple affirmed as VirnetX was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether prior art RFC2401 was a § 102(b) printed publication … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel | Leave a comment

Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Ezra Ventures LLC

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

Docket Nos. 2017-2284 MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES December 7, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel agreed with DC that § 156 PTE was proper even if it might otherwise be invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. Summary: Ezra appealed DC conclusion that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting | Leave a comment

Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Breckenridge Pharm. Inc.

Posted on December 11, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-2173, -2175-6, -2178-80, -2182-84 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN December 7, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding that Novartis’s “earlier-filed, but later expiring, patents’s statutorily-granted 17-year term” was invalid for double-patenting in view of its “later-filed, but earlier-expiring patent” reversed … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting | Leave a comment

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al.

Posted on December 7, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-1404 DYK, WALLACH, TARANTO Nov. 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of HTC’s motion to dismiss under § 101 reversed and remanded since “‘[t]he claimed method…specifically identifies how [a] functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected way” … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Enplas Display Device Corp. et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Posted on December 5, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2599 NEWMAN, HUGHES, STOLL Nov. 19, 2018 Brief summary: DC findings of no anticipation affirmed; damages award vacated (e.g., “damages calculated by applying a royalty rate to sales of non-accused lenses cannot support a jury’s verdict on damages”). … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment