Category Archives: Article III disputes

Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed (without prejudice) litigation

Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2019-1063 (IPR2017-00768) PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed … Continue reading

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

Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2019-1513, -1514 (IPR2017=01357, -01358) REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision finding it did not show invalidity of Chugai’s protein purification claims dismissed for … Continue reading

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

DJ grant of SJ of non-infringement vacated due to pre-existing settlement agreement

Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC et al. v. Casper Sleep Inc. Docket No. 2019-1098, -1159 DYK, PLAGER, STOLL February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ vacated and remanded due to pre-existing settlement agreement. Summary: Serta appealed DC grant of … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Licensing | Leave a comment

PTAB obviousness decision vacated as being improperly based on inherency

Knauf Insulation, Inc. et al. v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency. Summary: Knauf appealed PTAB’s inter partes … Continue reading

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