Category Archives: Appeal

DC correctly construed claims (e.g., “and” means “and/or”) but improperly denied pre-judgment interest

Posted on June 16, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Micheal Philip Kaufman v. Microsoft Corporation Docket No. 2021-1634, -1691 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1634.OPINION.5-20-2022_1954422.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM May 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but denial of pre-judgment interest reversed. Summary:  Mr. Kaufman appealed the DC’s denial of his motion … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Damages, Lost Profits, Preamble, Royalties | Leave a comment

DC finding of no Article III case or controversy remanded; transfer from CA to TX affirmed

Posted on June 9, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association Docket No. 2021-1989 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1989.OPINION.5-20-2022_1954430.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM May 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC finding of no Article III case or controversy remanded; transfer from CA to TX affirmed. Summary:  Mitek’s originally … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Termination of IPR outside of FC jurisdiction, including regarding sanctions

Posted on May 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1759 (IPR2015-00826) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1759.OPINION.5-13-2022_1951471.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL May 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   Appeal dismissed as FC lacked jurisdiction over IPR termination. Summary:  Atlanta Gas appealed USPTO IPR decision termination … Continue reading →

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

DC grant of SJ for indefiniteness and obviousness of Immunogen’s claims vacated and remanded

Posted on March 30, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Immunogen, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1939 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1939.OPINION.3-25-2022_1926731.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 25, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ that Immunogen’s pending claims are indefinite and obvious vacated and remanded as factual findings not undisputed. Summary:  Immunogen … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Incorporation by Reference, Indefiniteness, Obviousness, Written description | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms Board dismissal of third IPR following patentability finding in other simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same claims under section 315(e)(1)

Posted on March 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2021-1481 (IPR2-18-01248) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1481.OPINION.2-11-2022_1907139.pdf) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL February 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Intuitive’s appeal of pending IPR in view of patentability findings in two simultaneously filed IPRs regarding the same … Continue reading →

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

DC grant of Plasmacam’s motion to enforce its version of a settlement agreement reversed and remanded

Posted on February 24, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Plasmacam, Inc. v. CNCelectronics, LLC et al. Docket No. 2021-1689 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1689.OPINION.2-3-2022_1902753.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA February 3, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of Plasmacam’s motion to enforce its version of a settlement agreement reversed and remanded. Summary:  CNC appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Licensing | Leave a comment

Intel had Article III standing for appeal; Board IPR obviousness decision reversed as Intel showed motivation to combine under KSR

Posted on January 13, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1664 (IPR2018-01429) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1664.OPINION.12-28-2021_1885985.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES December 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board’s IPR claim construction affirmed but obviousness decision reversed due to “apparent reason to combine” the prior-art elements. Summary:  Intel appeal PTAB … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

IPR decision finding Moderna did not show Arbutus claims obvious affirmed

Posted on December 22, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. Docket No. 2020-2329 (IPR2-19-00554) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2329.OPINION.12-1-2021_1872458.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, STOLL December 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of non-obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Moderna appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR holding the claims of US 8,058,069 … Continue reading →

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

IPR decision finding Moderna did not show Arbutus claims obvious affirmed

Posted on December 22, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. Docket No. 2020-2329 (IPR2-19-00554) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2329.OPINION.12-1-2021_1872458.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, STOLL December 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of non-obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Moderna appealed USPTO (“Board”) IPR holding the claims of US 8,058,069 … Continue reading →

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

Apple’s appeals of IPR decisions dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Posted on May 4, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1561, -1642 (IPR2018-01279, -01252) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1561.OPINION.4-7-2021_1759839.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 7, 2021 Brief Summary:  Apple’s appeal of IPR FWDs dismissed due to global settlement agreement with Qualcomm (e.g., “displeasure with a license provision” does … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Licensing | Leave a comment