Monthly Archives: January 2022

Damages to inventor affirmed; award to Plastronics reversed due to Texas statute of limitations

Posted on January 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Plastronics Socket Partner, Ltd. et al. v. Dong Weon Hwang, HiCon Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2020-1739, -1781 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1739.OPINION.1-12-2022_1892222.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, HUGHES, STOLL January 12, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC award of breach of contract damages to inventor affirmed; award … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Licensing, Royalties | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s claims obvious affirmed due to motivation to combine references and proper claim construction

Posted on January 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2071 (IPRs 2018-01684) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2071.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886454.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious affirmed as substantial evidence supported the motivation to … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR decisions finding Sanofi’s injector claims obvious due to lack of written description in priority document affirmed

Posted on January 24, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2066, -2068-9 (IPRs 2018-01679-80, -82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2066.OPINION.12-29-2021_1886477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, CLEVENGER, TARANTO December 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision finding Sanofi’s patents obvious because priority application does not provide … Continue reading →

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

DC decisions reversed-in-part due to improper claim construction findings

Posted on January 19, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., DBA Supertool USA / Juggernaut Docket No. 2021-1963 and 2021-1987 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1963.OPINION.1-14-2022_1893196.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN January 14, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decisions reversed due to improper claim construction. Summary:  Evolusion appealed DC grant of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Claim Vitiation, Written description | Leave a comment

Intel had Article III standing for appeal; Board IPR obviousness decision reversed as Intel showed motivation to combine under KSR

Posted on January 13, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1664 (IPR2018-01429) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1664.OPINION.12-28-2021_1885985.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES December 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board’s IPR claim construction affirmed but obviousness decision reversed due to “apparent reason to combine” the prior-art elements. Summary:  Intel appeal PTAB … Continue reading →

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

FC panel finds negative limitation sufficiently described, affirms DC finding of no invalidity

Posted on January 6, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 3, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC finding Novartis patent not invalid for lack of written description of … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

Board decision finding Sky Cinemas mark unlikely to cause confusion with Sky International’s marks affirmed

Posted on January 4, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sky International AG v. Sky Cinemas LLC Docket No. 2021-1575 (USPTO Appeal No. 91223952) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1575.OPINION.12-17-2021_1881473.pdf) (Non-Precedential) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL December 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Sky Int.’s and Sky Cinemas marks unlikely to cause confusion affirmed. Summary:  Sky … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment