Category Archives: Article III disputes

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 v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency.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

DC decision vacated and remanded since it should have considered whether assignee AMD should be joined as a necessary party

Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp. et al. Docket 2018-1581, -1582 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN May 30, 2019 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded since it should have considered whether assignee AMD should be joined as a … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Assignment / Ownership | Leave a comment

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Docket No. 2017-1694 (IPR2015-01537) NEWMAN, DYK, CHEN February 7, 2019 Brief summary: Momenta’s appeal of PTAB FWD finding BMS’s claims relating to its Orencia CTLA4Ig product patentable dismissed as moot because evidence showed Momenta had abandoned its Orencia biosimilar project … Continue reading

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

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2597 (many others) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 22, 2019 Brief summary: FC panel concluded the DC’s judgment was not final and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. Summary: Princeton (PDIC) licensed US 4,813,056 to Adobe with the promise “not … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH

Docket No. 2017-2596 (IPR2016-01665) LOURIE, CHEN, STOLL January 11, 2019 Brief summary: Board decision finding UCB’s ‘650 patent relating to Pfizer’s Toviaz product was not shown invalid for obviousness affirmed. UCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing since Amerigen’s … Continue reading

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

Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. et al. (JH) v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC (PET)

Docket No. 2016-2700 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL December 7, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of JH’s DJ action against reversed and remanded since PET’s letters to the Banks charging infringement established minimum contacts in the ND TX and PET did not … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment