Category Archives: Analgous Art

In Re: Ethicon, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1696 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, DYK January 3, 2017 Brief Summary: The FC panel concluded that the “teaching of all of the required components of the claims” by the cited art “support the Board’s combination” of the same “to … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (“CAD”) v. Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

IPR2015-02776 (US 7,582,621B2) Final Written Decision February 23, 2017 Brief Summary: Board found CAD had shown invalidity for obviousness of the ‘621 claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: CAD petitioned for IPR of Anacor’s US 7,582,621 B2 on … Continue reading

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

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al. v. Telebrands Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1410 MOORE, WALLACH, STOLL January 24, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of PI and no invalidity for indefiniteness or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Telebrands appealed DC entry of preliminary injunction (PI) barring it from selling its “Balloon Bonanza, or … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Natural Alternatives, LLC

Docket No. 2015-1911 NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY August 31, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that claims directed to deicing road services using desugared sugar beet molasses would have been obvious reversed (e.g., it did not meet its burden to demonstrate … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994 PROST, DYK, REYNA February 26, 2016 Update: See Oct. 7, 2016 en banc opinion reversing this opinion. Brief Summary: DC decisions were affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part. Notably, Samsung’s appeal of DC denial of JMOL of non-infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1155 LOURIE, DYK, MOORE July 28, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL for obviousness reversed and remanded because reasonable jury could have concluded, as this jury did or was presumed to conclude, that prior art was not … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Dwight C. Shaneour

Docket No. 2014-1518 PROST, O’MALLEY, TARANTO (per curiam) January 8, 2015 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that examiner examiner correctly rejected claims as obvious affirmed as prior art was “reasonably pertinent” and there was “no recitation in the patent disclosure … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness, Preamble | Leave a comment