Monthly Archives: February 2023

DC grant of PI vacated and remanded as Lite-Netics’ infringement allegations not objectively baseless (First Amendment issues relating to customer letters addressed)

Posted on February 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, Holiday Bright Lights (“HBL”) Docket No. 2023-1146 (h https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1146.OPINION.2-17-2023_2082508.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STARK February 17, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC grant of PI vacated and remanded based on the DC’s abuse of discretion in … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Injunction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

DC invalidation of Minerva’s claims for public use at scientific meeting affirmed

Posted on February 17, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Minvera Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC Docket No. 2021-2246 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2246.OPINION.2-15-2023_2081255.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL February 15, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding of Minverva’s claims invalid for public use at a scientific meeting affirmed. Summary:  Minerva appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment

DC invalidation of “isolated” vitamin B3 compositions under 101 affirmed

Posted on February 15, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

ChromaDex, Inc., Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Elysium Health, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1116 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1116.OPINION.2-13-2023_2079642.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL February 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   Invalidation of claims to isolated vitamin B3 (NR) compositions as unpatentable under section 101 affirmed. Summary:  ChromaDex … Continue reading →

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

CyWee’s Arthrex-like arguments rejected; Board extension of time to produce FWDs and USPTO Director denial of rehearing affirmed

Posted on February 9, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1565, -1567 (IPR2018-01257-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1565.OPINION.2-8-2023_2077658.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN February 8, 2023 Brief Summary:   CyWee’s Arthrex-like arguments rejected; Board extension of time to produce FWDs and USPTO Director … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

DC claim construction based on description of invention affirmed; anticipation reversed; trade dress invalidity affirmed

Posted on February 7, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mosaic Brands, Inc., et al. v. Ridge Wallet LLC Docket No. 2022-1001-2 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1001.OPINION.12-20-2022_2050643.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, STARK December 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed based on description of invention “as a whole” in specification.  Anticipation finding based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Trade Dress, Written description | Leave a comment

Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LKQ Corporation, et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC Docket No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1253.OPINION.1-20-2023_2066551.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STARK January 20, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary:  LKQ appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment