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

DC denial of new infringement trial affirmed but jury damages award vacated due to improper apportionment

Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp. Docket No. 2020-1793, -1794 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1793.OPINION.9-14-2021_1833974.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES September 14, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC denial of CalAmp’s JMOL for a new trial on infringement affirmed but jury damages award vacated and remanded for improper … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Royalties | Leave a comment

DC decision finding inequitable conduct based on FDA submissions affirmed

Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1799 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1799.OPINION.9-1-2021_1828017.pdf) REYNA, TARANTO, STOLL September 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC inequitable conduct finding based in part on prior art submitted to the FDA during the approval process affirmed. Summary:  Belcher appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

DC decision finding Juno’s CAR-T claims to be properly described reversed

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Sloan Kettering v. Kite Pharma, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1758 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1758.OPINION.8-26-2021_1825257.pdf) MOORE, PROST, O’MALLEY August 26, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision that Juno’s claimed “binding element that specifically interacts with a selected target” (e.g., scFv that binds CD19) … Continue reading

Posted in Written description | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for new claim construction; algorithm not required for circuitry

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1589-94 (IPR2018-01326-30, -01340) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, STOLL July 27, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness decisions vacated and remanded as Qualcomm had no notice of change in claim construction; “algorithm … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly considering the commercial sales evidence

Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd. et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1289, -1290 (IPR2018-00992, -00993) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1289.OPINION.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA July 22, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board obviousness IPR decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness and invalidity findings affirmed as claims lack “reasonable certainty”

TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Electronics, et al. Docket No. 2020-1837 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1837.OPINION.6-28-2021_1796547.pdf) (Non-precedential) PROST, SCHALL, REYNA June 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness and invalidity findings affirmed (no reasonable certainty). Summary:  TVnGO appealed DC finding that the claims of five … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Amgen’s petition for en banc hearing regarding enablement of anti-PCSK9 antibody claims denied

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al. Docket No. 2020-1074 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1074.OPINION.2-11-2021_1731739.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES February 11, 2021 (updated June 21, 2021) Update (June 21, 2021):  Amgen’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied.  Judges Lourie, Prost and Hughes authored an opinion … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

FC panel finds MSFT’s IPR obviousness arguments lack particularity and affirms Board claim construction and no anticipation finding

Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC Docket No. 2020-1928 (IPR2018-01594) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1928.OPINION.6-17-2021_1792142.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY June 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision finding MSFT failed to show FG’s claims to be unpatentable affirmed. Summary:  MSFT appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision that … Continue reading

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

Digital camera device claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1760 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1760.OPINION.6-11-2021_1789244.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, TARANTO June 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that claims to “improved digital camera” are patent ineligibile (101) affirmed (“whether a … Continue reading

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

DC claim construction and finding of noninfringement by Amazon et al. affirmed

SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon, et al. (multiple retailers) Docket No. 2020-1573, -1660 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1573.OPINION.6-3-2021_1785939.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, REYNA June 3, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that Amazon et al. do not infringe SpeedTrack’s patent to computer file access systems affirmed (no claim … Continue reading

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