Monthly Archives: May 2021

IPR decision finding certain of Uniloc’s claims obvious based on disputed claim construction, and others non-obviousness, affirmed

Posted on May 25, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc. (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1403, -1404 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1403.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776581.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, REYNA May 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR claim construction and obviousness of certain claims, and nonobviousness of other claims, affirmed. Summary:  Uniloc appealed … Continue reading →

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

DC finding of no personal jurisdiction reversed due to TX-based PerDiemCo’s communications with Trimble in California

Posted on May 21, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Trimble Inc. et al. PerDiemCo LLC Docket No. 2019-2164 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2164.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776598.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, HUGHES May 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding of no personal jurisdiction reversed and remanded (e.g., PerDiemCo “exchanged twenty-two communications with Trimble in California over a period of … Continue reading →

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Patent eligibility decision reversed (“claims do not at all describe how that result is achieved”) and claim construction affirmed based on specification

Posted on May 18, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

First Stream Media Corp. (“Samba”) v. Alphonso Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1506, -2133 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1506.OPINION.5-11-2021_1776030.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES May 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC eligibility (101) decision reversed (“claims do not at all describe how that result is achieved”); claim … Continue reading →

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

PacBio’s claims not enabled for “full scope of nucleic acids covered”; Oxford’s COVID-related statements not prejudicial

Posted on May 14, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc. Docket No. 2020-2155, -2156 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-2155.OPINION.5-11-2021_1776046.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STOLL May 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Lack of enablement finding affirmed (e.g., “relevant artisans did not know how to perform nanopore sequencing for … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

Preamble limits the claim and uCloudlink does not infringe, DC decision reversed

Posted on May 13, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong UCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2019-2411 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2411.OPINION.1-5-2021_1711937.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL January 5, 2021 Brief Summary:  FC panel agreed preamble is limiting but also that uCloudlink does not infringe the claims, reversing … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble | Leave a comment

Apple’s appeals of IPR decisions dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Posted on May 4, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1561, -1642 (IPR2018-01279, -01252) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1561.OPINION.4-7-2021_1759839.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 7, 2021 Brief Summary:  Apple’s appeal of IPR FWDs dismissed due to global settlement agreement with Qualcomm (e.g., “displeasure with a license provision” does … Continue reading →

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