Category Archives: Claim Construction

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Docket No. 2017-1671 (several others) (IPR2015-00545-48, -00551, -00554, -01903) NEWMAN, LOURIE, REYNA July 13, 2018 Brief summary: Board obviousness decision in several final written decisions affirmed (“no reason to exercise any discretion to remand the non-instituted claims or grounds sua … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2388 DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES July 6, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC claim construction and grant of SJ for non-infringement affirmed. Summary: Spineology appealed DC finding that claims 15, 21-23 and 35 of RE42,757 relating to surgical tools (“[a]n … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Reissue | Leave a comment

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 DYK, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 3, 2018 Brief summary: DC claim constructions affirmed (e.g., no prosecution history estoppel) but damages determination based on the “entire market value rule” vacated and remanded since, e.g., PI “did not meet … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties | Leave a comment

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corp.

Docket No. 2017-1235, -1288 (IPR2015-01039) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO May 9, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB decision of obviousness of certain claims affirmed; decision of non-obviousness of claim 11 reversed based on revised claim construction. Summary: Valmont appealed final PTAB decision … Continue reading

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

The General Hospital Corporation v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1012 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO May 4, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction affirmed but denial of GHC’s motion to introduce a new claim vacated and remanded. Summary: GHC appealed PTAB dismissal of an interference (with Sienna’s US 8,821,941) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. (USPTO, Intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1944-46 (IPR2013-00601) DYK, BRYSON, REYNA (D) April 20, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB rejection of Wi-Fi’s time-bar argument (§ 315(b)) that no DC “defendant was either a privy of Broadcom or a real party in interest”, and that the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1295, -1297 (IPR2015-00841, -00842) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE April 19, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s findings of anticipation and obviousness following IPR reversed based on FC panel’s revised claim construction. Summary: Wonderland (WL) appealed two IPR decisions finding the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment