Category Archives: Claim Construction

Ignite USA, LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2747 (IPR2015-01034) PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO October 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Claim construction and obviousness determination in PTAB FWD regarding Ignite’s patent affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Summary: Ignite appealed PTAB final written decision following IPR finding … Continue reading

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

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2613 (IPR2015-00650) NEWMAN, DYK, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that Owens did not show obviousness during IPR reversed (not remanded) under a corrected claim construction. Summary: Fast Felt sued Owens for infringement of its US … Continue reading

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

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Hass Company

Docket No. 2015-1983, -2001 PROST, NEWMAN, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR sustaining the patentability of Rohm’s patents relating to polymers for use in paints and the like affirmed (e.g., Organik did not present any “evidence … Continue reading

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

In Re: Smith International, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2303 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES September 26, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming examiner’s rejection based on broad reading of the claim term “body” reversed since adopting “the broadest possible interpretation of a claim term, irrespective of repeated and … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-1795 NEWMAN (C/D), DYK, TARANTO September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of JMOL to Motorola affirmed with respect to invalidity but reversed as to direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) (e.g., “the end user must be … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland L.P.

Docket No. 2016-2297 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH August 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction (preamble is not a limitation), willfulness, and enhanced damages ($1m) conclusions affirmed. Summary: Holland appealed the DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction, willfulness, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Docket No. 2016-1123 (IPR2014-00070) NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY August 7, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision that Personal Audio’s ‘504 claims were anticipated and/or obvious affirmed. EFF found to have standing to defend PTAB decision since Personal Audio was appellant and the … Continue reading

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