Monthly Archives: May 2020

Posted on May 29, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC Docket No. 2019-1544 (IPR2017-01440) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness FWD affirmed based on SRAM’s secondary evidence (e.g., “industry skepticism and subsequent praise and long-felt need”). Summary: Fox … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness findings affirmed except for one claim that “describes a stand-alone alternative” to means-plus-function limitation

Posted on May 28, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB, et al. Docket No. 2019-1105, -1106 (IPR2017-01018, -01019) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 15, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness findings affirmed, while its analysis of one means-plus-function claim vacated and remanded. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed, claim construction arguments waived

Posted on May 20, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., USPTO as Intervenor Docket No. 2019-1584 (IPR2017-01899) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed (e.g., BSN “waived any claim construction argument…by failing to … Continue reading →

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

Corrected assignment effective to show ownership, willful infringement finding and prejudgment interest award affirmed

Posted on May 18, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jodi A. Schwendimann, Cooler Concepts, Inc. v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2416, 2019-1012 O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH May 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of willful infringement and award of prejudgment interest affirmed; “corrected nunc pro tunc” assignment effective … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Damages, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Uniloc claim ineligible under § 101 as abstract, claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”

Posted on May 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2019-2048 MOORE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 13, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed (abstract idea since claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”). Summary: Uniloc appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC non-infringement decision affirmed due to disclosure-dedication doctrine

Posted on May 11, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC Docket No. 2019-1924 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN May 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of no infringement under DOE based on disclosure-dedication doctrine affirmed. Summary: Eagle appealed DC judgment of non-infringement of US Pat. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement | Leave a comment

IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed (without prejudice) litigation

Posted on May 7, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2019-1063 (IPR2017-00768) PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed … Continue reading →

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

DC ineligibility decision reversed as claims are directed to a (“patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality”

Posted on May 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1835 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility under § 101 for being abstract (Alice, step one) reversed and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment