Category Archives: Appeal

DC dismissal of IPR institution decision action affirmed, reversed as to Apple’s improper USPTO rule-making argument

Posted on March 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Apple, Inc., et al. (Cisco, Google, Edwards LifeSciences (“Apple”)) v. USPTO Docket No. 2022-1249 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1249.OPINION.3-13-2023_2093598.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STOLL March 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC decision dismissing its action against the USPTO regarding its IPR institution decision affirmed, but reversed … Continue reading →

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

CyWee’s Arthrex-like arguments rejected; Board extension of time to produce FWDs and USPTO Director denial of rehearing affirmed

Posted on February 9, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1565, -1567 (IPR2018-01257-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1565.OPINION.2-8-2023_2077658.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN February 8, 2023 Brief Summary:   CyWee’s Arthrex-like arguments rejected; Board extension of time to produce FWDs and USPTO Director … Continue reading →

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

Novartis appeals to SCOTUS rehearing of FC panel decision reversing negative limitation written description finding of prior FC panel

Posted on January 25, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, et al. and HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. Docket No. 2021-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1070.OPINION.1-3-2022_1887614.pdf) MOORE (D), LINN, O’MALLEY January 24, 2022 Second Update (January 24, 2023): Novartis petitioned SCOTUS with two questions presented:  1) Whether … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Negative Limitations, U.S. Supreme Court, Written description | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms Board IPR decisions finding P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims obvious

Posted on January 10, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

P Tech, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1102, -1115 (IPR-2020-00649-50) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1102.OPINION.12-15-2022_2048477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, CUNNINGHAM December 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions of obviousness of P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims affirmed. Summary:  P Tech appealed … Continue reading →

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

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Posted on September 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed

Posted on September 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Best Medical Int., Inc. v. Elekta Inc. Docket No. 2021-2099, -2100 (IPR2020-0070-72) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2099.OPINION.8-26-2022_1996028.pdf) HUGHES, LINN, STOLL August 26, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed. Summary:  BMI appealed two IPR Board decisions finding … Continue reading →

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

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