Category Archives: Analgous Art

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Docket No. 2017-1008 DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 30, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s decision of one anticipation and two obviousness rejections affirmed; another obviousness rejection reversed and remanded as being based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

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