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

Ignite USA, LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2747 (IPR2015-01034) PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO October 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Claim construction and obviousness determination in PTAB FWD regarding Ignite’s patent affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Summary: Ignite appealed PTAB final written decision following IPR finding … Continue reading

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

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2613 (IPR2015-00650) NEWMAN, DYK, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that Owens did not show obviousness during IPR reversed (not remanded) under a corrected claim construction. Summary: Fast Felt sued Owens for infringement of its US … Continue reading

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

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Hass Company

Docket No. 2015-1983, -2001 PROST, NEWMAN, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR sustaining the patentability of Rohm’s patents relating to polymers for use in paints and the like affirmed (e.g., Organik did not present any “evidence … Continue reading

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

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Docket No. 2015-1177 (IPR2013-00159) En banc Opinion October 4, 2017 Brief summary: Earlier appeal of IPR decision remanded “to the Board to issue a final decision under § 318(a) assessing the patentability of the proposed substituted claims without placing the … Continue reading

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

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Regeneron et al.

Docket No. 2017-1480 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 5, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s exclusion of post-priority-date evidence relating to whether a representative number of species were described in the patents’ specifications reversed and remanded; grant of permanent injunction against Sanofi therefore … Continue reading

Posted in Injunction, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Galen J. Suppes v. Kattesh V. Katti, et al.

Docket No. 2017-1142 NEWMAN, WALLCH, CHEN October 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC dismissal of Mr. Suppes complaint against university employer for declining to file patent applications for certain of his ideas and not allowing him to do so without … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Inventorship | Leave a comment

G. David Jang, M.D. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1275, -1575 PROST, O’MALLEY, CHEN September 29, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision affirmed because Dr. Jang “was unable to meet his burden of” submitting “a proper hypothetical claim for consideration” proving that his [DOE] theory did not ensnare … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement | Leave a comment