Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2152 (PGR2017-00012) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for error in disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant. Summary: Liqwd appealed Board post-grant review (PGR) decision … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Post-grant review, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board decision finding Google did not show anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Google LLC v. Kininklijke Philips, N.V. Docket Nos. 2018-2213 (IPR2017-00437) Moore, Bryson, Chen October 23, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision that Google did not show the challenged claims to be anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary: Google appealed Board … Continue reading

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

PTAB denies institution of IPR against PureCircle’s steviol process claims

Sweegen, Inv. v. PureCircle USA Inc., et al. IPR2019-01017 (US 9,243,273B2) October 24, 2019 Decision not to institute IPR Brief Summary: Petition for IPR denied as PTAB determined Sweegen did not present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness or … Continue reading

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

PTAB anticipation/obviousness decision reversed since prior art did not disclose the claimed device “arranged as claimed”

In Re: Stepen Brian Gates, Jeremy Black Docket No. 2018-2331 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL October 16, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB appeal decision affirming the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections reversed and remanded since the prior art did not disclose the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC correctly denied preliminary injunction since Propel showed evidence of anticipation by parent patent application

OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Injunction, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision vacated and remanded for erroneous claim construction; negative limitation not disclosed by prior art.

WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1617 (IPR2016-01238) NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL August 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision finding WAG’s claims invalid for anticipation reversed due to erroneous claim construction (e.g., the definition “comes … Continue reading

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

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment