Category Archives: Analgous Art

IPR decision vacated and remanded for failure to compare “purposes or problems” of patent and alleged analogous art

Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC Docket No. 2020-1104 (IPR2018-00708) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1104.OPINION.11-9-2020_1682293.pdf) PROST, DYK, HUGHES November 9, 2020 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision vacated and remanded as it “failed to properly identify and compare the purposes or problems” of … Continue reading

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

USPTO’s “Informative” denial of IPR institution finds Petitioner did not “explain[] sufficiently why” combination would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success

Johns Manville Corp. et al. (Petitioner) v. Knauf Insulation et al. (Patent Owner) IPR2018-00827 (US 9,828,287 B2) Final Written Decision entered October 16, 2018 Designated as Informative by the USPTO on December 11, 2019 Brief Summary: Informative FWD concluded Petitioner … Continue reading

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

Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art analysis (“reasonably pertinent”)

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation Docket Nos. 2019-1803 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 8, 2019 Brief Summary: Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art determination (i.e., “whether the reference…is reasonably pertinent”). Summary: Airbus appealed Board reversal … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In re: Timothy D. Durance, et al.

Docket No. 2017-1486 LOURIE, REYNA, CHEN June 1, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB affirmance of examiner’s obviousness rejection vacated and remanded due to the examiner’s and PTAB’s “multiple shifting articulations” of the rejections. Summary: Mr. Durance et al. appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

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

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Covidien LP v. Hologic, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1008 DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 30, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s decision of one anticipation and two obviousness rejections affirmed; another obviousness rejection reversed and remanded as being based on non-analogous art. Summary: S&N appealed Board decision affirming … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. USPTO

Docket Nos. 2015-1928 (IPR2014-00183) NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD affirmed as to finding of obviousness and anticipation but vacated as to dismissal of contingent motion to amend claims since the that the PTAB “impermissibly … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Genzyme Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories / Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2206, -2207 MOORE, PLAGER, CHEN December 18, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision of nonobviousness found not to be clearly erroneous due to a lack of reasonable expectation of success in arguments (e.g., based on non-analogous art that … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Obviousness | Leave a comment

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