-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Patrick J. Halloran,… on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Kevin E Noonan on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Qualities of a Good… on Edwards Life Sciences AG et al… Archives
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unjust enrichment
- Willfullness
- Written description
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Enablement Expert Testimony Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Patentability Preamble Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Category Archives: Appeal
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2016-2006 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES May 26, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel determined it lacked jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) or § 1295(c)(2) because “the order appealed from is itself non-final”. Summary: Pulse appealed from DC’s award of prejudgment interest … Continue reading
Posted in Appeal, Damages, Jurisdiction
Leave a comment
NOVA Chemicals Corporation, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company
Docket No. 2016-1576 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC award of attorney fees to Dow affirmed as NOVA’s litigation position was found to be “objectively baseless” under Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: NOVA appealed DC award of … Continue reading
Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees, Expert Testimony
Leave a comment
In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.
Docket No. 2016-1830 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 10, 2017 Brief Summary: No error found with the Board’s authority to reexamine even though LG withdrew since LG submitted the request and “was still involved in the proceedings at the time the … Continue reading
Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Reexamination
Leave a comment
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Financial Company et al.
Docket No. 2016-1077 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN March 7, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) affirmed under Fourth Circuit law and finding of ineligibility under under § 101 affirmed under the two-step Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” … Continue reading
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. USPTO (Intervenor)
Docket No. 2014-1516. -1530 (IPR2012-00042) CHEN, MAYER, STOLL February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Board decision after IPR affirmed and FC finds “the Board need only issue a final written decision with respect to claims on which [IPR] has been initiated”. … Continue reading
Andre Walker v. Health International Corporation et al. (“HSN”)
Docket No. 2015-1676 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 6, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel concluded “[t]his appeal was frivolous as filed” and included “numerous mischaracterizations of clear authority” (Octocom, FC 1990); DC award of attorneys’ fees found reasonable (and it doubled … Continue reading
Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees
Leave a comment
Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.
Docket No. 2016-1544 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES January 9, 2017 Brief Summary: Phigenix found not to have Article III standing for its appeal of PTAB final written decision after IPR. Summary: Phigenix appealed PTAB final written decision after IPR that claims … Continue reading
