Monthly Archives: February 2020

DJ grant of SJ of non-infringement vacated due to pre-existing settlement agreement

Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC et al. v. Casper Sleep Inc. Docket No. 2019-1098, -1159 DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ vacated and remanded due to pre-existing settlement agreement. Summary: Serta appealed DC grant of … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Licensing | Leave a comment

Board erroneously excluded Apple’s reply arguments as new, not presented in IPR petition

Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation Docket No. 2018-2382, -2383 (IPR2017-00626, -00627) DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 7, 2020 Brief Summary: Board erroneously excluded Apple’s IPR reply arguments as new as compared to IPR petition (‘626 remanded), and no anticipation or … Continue reading

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

DC dismissal affirmed as grandchild patent impliedly licensed in settlement agreement

Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1264 LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN February 6, 2020 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of Cheetah’s claims against AT&T affirmed since grandchild patent was impliedly included in prior license to grandparent parent. … Continue reading

Posted in Licensing, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biogen’s Tecfidera-related ‘514 patent not obvious in IPR final written decision due to unexpected results of claimed dosage amount

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc. IPR2018-01403 (PTAB Final Written Decision) February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: Biogen’s Tecfidera-related US 8,399,514 B2 (“method of treating…multiple sclerosis” not obvious due in part to unexpected results (IPR final written decision). Summary: Mylan … Continue reading

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

“Lay witness” not qualified as an expert cannot testify as to conclusion of obviousness

HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Scott D. Fleischman Docket No. 2019-1649 NEWMAN, MOORE, CHEN February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: DC’s limiting jury instructions regarding obviousness because “lay witness” was not qualified as an expert. Summary: HVO appealed DC denial … Continue reading

Posted in Expert Testimony, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Means-plus-function, Uncategorized | Leave a comment