Category Archives: Appeal

“Substantial risk of future infringement” provides standing for IPR appeal; non-obviousness conclusion vacated and remanded

Posted on January 11, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation Docket No. 2019-1319 (IPR2017-00428) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1319.OPINION.12-28-2020_1707556.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES December 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  GE found to have standing due to a substantial risk of future infringement”; Board finding of no obviousness vacated and … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decision affirmed; Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d)

Posted on June 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC Docket No. 2019-1659 (IPR2019-02197) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES May 19, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed. Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d). Summary: ESIP appealed Board IPR decision … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Acoustic’s IPR time-bar arguments waived; anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1061 (IPR2017-1061) (see also FC Docket Nos. 2019-1059, -1060) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: Appeal based on time-bar arguments not presented to the Board were waived; anticipation … Continue reading →

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

ISPs handling servers are not Google’s agents, venue therefore improper

Posted on February 25, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re: Google LLC Docket No. 2019-126 DYK, WALLACH, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: ED TX not the proper venue since Google “had no employee or agent regularly conducting its business” in that district (ISPs handling servers are not … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Venue | Leave a comment

Appeal of IPR decision dismissed as litigation settled and “substantial risk of future infringement” not shown

Posted on December 5, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd. Docket Nos. 2018-2262 (IPR2017-00504) November 27, 2019 Non-Precedential Order Brief Summary: ResMed’s motion to dismiss appeal of IPR decision after underlying litigation was settled granted because Fisher did “not provide[] any, let … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Remanded IPR decision reversed and vacated as “supported by…faulty reasoning”

Posted on December 2, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re: IPR Licensing, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1805 (IPR2014-00525, IPR2015-00074) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO November 22, 2019 Brief Summary: Board remanded IPR decision reversed and vacated as “supported by the same faulty reasoning” as the first IPR decision. Summary: This appeal … Continue reading →

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

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Posted on November 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board properly decided to deny institution and dismiss IPRs on SAS remand instead of instituting on all grounds

Posted on September 5, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

BioDelivery Sciences Int., Inc. v. Aquesitive Therapeutics, Inc., FKA Monsol Rx, LLC Docket No. 2019-1643-45 (IPR2015-00165, -00168, -00169) NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, REYNA (Order) August 26, 2019 Brief Summary: On remand under SAS after instituting IPRs on less than all the … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GE’s “purported competitive injuries” found not to provide standing to appeal IPR

Posted on July 18, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

General Electric Company (GE) v. United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Docket No. 2017-2497 (IPR2016-00531) REYNA, TARANTO, HUGHES July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: GE appealed Board IPR finding claims 7-11 of UTC’s US 8,511,605 relating to gear fan gas turbine engines not … Continue reading →

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

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 29, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2015-1242 (IPR2013-00312) O’Malley, Taranto, Stark (with en banc footnote 3) August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that § 315(b) one-year time bar does not apply where earlier complaint was … Continue reading →

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