Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

CRFD Res. V. USPTO (IPR2015-00055 (“Iron Dome FWD”)); CRFD Res. v. DISH et al. (IPR2015-00627 (“DISH FWD”)); Hulu/Spotify v. CRFD Res. (IPR2015-00259 (“HULU FWD”))

Docket Nos. 2016-2198, 2016-2298, 2016-2437 DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 5, 2017 Brief summary: Findings of no invalidity in two IPRs (Iron Dome and DISH) affirmed, but Hulu FWD finding of no obviousness reversed because the PTAB “failed to perform a … Continue reading

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

Microsoft Corporation and IBM v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2515, -2517-19, -2642, -2644-2646 (IPR2015-00483-00486, -01729, 01732, -01734) DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 1, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s claim construction affirmed but decisions of no anticipation and obviousness vacated and remanded because it did not provide adequate explanations. … Continue reading

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

Art+Com InnovationPool GmbH v. Google LLC

Docket Nos. 2017-1016 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 20, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC entry of jury anticipation finding affirmed; finding of no infringement by Google was not reached by the FC panel. Summary: Art+Com (“AC”) appealed DC entry of judgment … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Public Use | Leave a comment

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Hass Company

Docket No. 2015-1983, -2001 PROST, NEWMAN, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR sustaining the patentability of Rohm’s patents relating to polymers for use in paints and the like affirmed (e.g., Organik did not present any “evidence … Continue reading

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

Coherus Biosciences, Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

IPR Nos. 2017-00822, -00823, -01008, -01009 U.S. Pat. No. 9,085,619 B2 Decisions Not To Insitute (September 7, 2017) Brief summary: Board decided not to institute any of Coherus’s four petitions for IPR of claims 16-19 and 24-30 of Abbvie’s US … Continue reading

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

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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

Mylan Insitutional LLC and Apicore US LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.

Docket No. 2017-1645 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA May 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of preliminary injunction and finding of infringement Apicore’s “process patents” under the DOE reversed since the function-way-result test not appropriate under this chemical case. Grant of PI … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment