Author Archives: Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sharp and Vizio not shown to infringe Wi-Lan’s flicker effect patents, FC panel affirmed

Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Vizio, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1041, -1043 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1041.OPINION.4-6-2021_1759180.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 6, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of non-infringement and claim construction findings affirmed. Summary:  Wi-Lan appealed DC finding that neither Sharp … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Infringement | Leave a comment

Speculative arguments not enough to provide Apple with standing to appeal IPR decisions

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 two IPR decisions dismissed for lack of standing in view of license agreement and speculative arguments related … Continue reading

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

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

IPR anticipation finding affirmed as negative limitation lacks support; refusal to enter amended claims as anticipated reversed due to improper analysis

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1600 (IPR2018-00936) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1600.OPINION.3-15-2021_1747758.pdf) (Non-Precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 15, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR finding of anticipation based on claim construction affirmed (e.g., negative limitation not supported); reversed and remanded as to proposed … Continue reading

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

DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. OKI Data Americas, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1189.OPINION.2-10-2021_1730931.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, TARANTO February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”. Summary:  Infinity appealed DC indefiniteness finding regarding US Pat. … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s diagnostic claims affirmed as “mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, not including a “specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome”

In Re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1012.OPINION.3-11-2021_1746411.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Stanford’s diagnostic claims ineligible (“mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, no “specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC erred in granting SJ of noninfringement as claim construction “dependent on the way the claimed cassette is put to use in an unclaimed structure and erroneous function-way-result analysis

Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC et al. v. Munchkin, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1203 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1203.OPINION.3-9-2021_1745042.pdf) NEWMAN, MOORE, HUGHES March 9, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ vacated-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded (claim construction “dependent on the way the claimed cassette is … Continue reading

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

FC panel affirms DC claim construction, enablement, damages, and no willfulness findings

Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al. and Nektar Therapeutics Docket No. 2019-2418, 2020-1017 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2418.OPINION.3-1-2021_1740684.pdf) NEWMAN, LINN, STOLL March 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, enablement, damages, and no willfulness findings affirmed. Summary:  Baxalta/Nektar (“B/N”) appealed DC denial … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Enablement, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC grant of intervening rights regarding reexamined patent affirmed

John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Assoc., Inc. Docket No. 2020-1090, -1148 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1090.OPINION.2-19-2021_1736234.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH February 19, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of intervening rights to Morris affirmed. Summary:  John Bean (JB) appealed DC decision as to equitable … Continue reading

Posted in Intervening Rights, Reexamination | Leave a comment

FC panel reverses IPR finding of no obviousness and vacates decision as to dependent claims that the Board did not discuss separately

Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC Docket No. 2019-1927 (IPR2017-02125) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1927.OPINION.2-18-2021_1735559.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA February 18, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as to independent claims and vacated the decision as to the dependent claims (e.g., … Continue reading

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