Category Archives: Article III disputes

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

State sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings, Federal Circuit decides

Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. et al. (Gilead Sci. Inc., intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-1560-65 (IPR2017-01068, -01186, -01197, -01200, -01213, -01214, -0129) DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES June 14, 2019 Brief summary: FC panel concluded “that state sovereign immunity … Continue reading

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