Category Archives: Anticipation (35 USC 102)

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In Re: Stepen Brian Gates, Jeremy Black Docket No. 2018-2331 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL October 16, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB appeal decision affirming the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections reversed and remanded since the prior art did not disclose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 Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the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 Docket No. 2018-1617 (IPR2016-01238) NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL August 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision finding WAG’s claims invalid for anticipation reversed due to erroneous claim construction (e.g., the definition “comes …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

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

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

Federal Circuit vacates and remands IPR decisions based on public accessibility

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2007, -2012 (IPR2017-00099, -00100) Newman, Schall, O’Malley July 12, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR decisions based on no public accessibility vacated and remanded (e.g., “a petitioner need not establish that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Public Accessibility, Public Use | Leave a comment