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

TTAB decision to cancel soda-related marks as requested by Coca-Cola reversed

Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Company Docket No. 2021-2209 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2209.OPINION.6-29-2022_1971328.pdf) DYK, REYNA (C), STOLL June 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   TTAB cancellation Meenaxi’s soda-related marks reversed. Summary:  Meenaxi appealed TTAB (“Board”) decision in Coca-Cola’s favor regarding Meenaxi’s Thums Up cola … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness conclusion vacated for incorrect claim construction, grant of SJ regarding jurisdiction vacated

Univ. of Massachusetts, Carmel Labs., LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1969 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1969.OPINION.6-13-2022_1964183.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO June 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding vacated due to improper claim construction and grant of SJ for … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Wherein, Written description | Leave a comment

Rehearing reverses prior FC panel decision, concluding instead that negative limitation not described by specification, reverses DC finding of no invalidity

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) Original Panel:  MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY (January 3, 2022) Rehearing Panel:  MOORE, LINN (D), HUGHES (June 21, 2022) Update (June 21, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Negative Limitations, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Docket No. 2020-2334-40 (IPR2019-00578-82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2334.OPINION.5-24-2022_1955796.pdf) (Non-Precedential) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO May 24, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed. Summary: Cornell appealed USPTO Board final written decisions … Continue reading

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

DC correctly construed claims (e.g., “and” means “and/or”) but improperly denied pre-judgment interest

Micheal Philip Kaufman v. Microsoft Corporation Docket No. 2021-1634, -1691 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1634.OPINION.5-20-2022_1954422.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM May 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but denial of pre-judgment interest reversed. Summary:  Mr. Kaufman appealed the DC’s denial of his motion … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Damages, Lost Profits, Preamble, Royalties | Leave a comment

DC finding of no Article III case or controversy remanded; transfer from CA to TX affirmed

Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association Docket No. 2021-1989 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1989.OPINION.5-20-2022_1954430.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM May 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC finding of no Article III case or controversy remanded; transfer from CA to TX affirmed. Summary:  Mitek’s originally … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success)

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1995, -1997 (IPR2020-00050, -00051) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1995.OPINION.5-23-2022_1955050.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), REYNA, HUGHES May 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board IPR final written … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (analogous art, motivation to combine)

Ethicon LLC and Cilag GmbH Int. (“Ethicon”) v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1601 (IPR2019-00991) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1601.OPINION.5-19-2022_1953841.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, STOLL May 19, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Medical Devices, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Termination of IPR outside of FC jurisdiction, including regarding sanctions

Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1759 (IPR2015-00826) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1759.OPINION.5-13-2022_1951471.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL May 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   Appeal dismissed as FC lacked jurisdiction over IPR termination. Summary:  Atlanta Gas appealed USPTO IPR decision termination … Continue reading

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

Claim construction affirmed, Hulu’s SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; damages testimony exclusion affirmed

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC Docket No. 2021-1998 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1998.OPINION.5-11-2022_1950301.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO May 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; exclusion of certain damages testimony affirmed. Summary:  Sound … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Disclaimers, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel, Software | Leave a comment