Category Archives: Claim Construction

Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2262.OPINION.11-16-2022_2034079.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, STARK November 16, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed.  FC panel explains that “a disclaimer in … Continue reading

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

DC claim construction based on definition incorporated-by-reference reversed

Finjan LLC v. ESET, LLC, ESET SPOL. S.R.O. Docket No. 2021-2093 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2093.OPINION.11-1-2022_2027205.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO November 1, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ of invalidity for indefiniteness based on claim construction relating to incorporation-by-reference reversed. Summary:  Finjan appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Incorporation by Reference, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading

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

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading

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

DC and USPTO decisions not to grant patent term adjustments to SawStop’s patents affirmed (type C delay extensions)

SawStop Holding, LLC vs. USPTO Docket No. 2021-1537, -2105 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1537.OPINION.9-14-2022_2003622.pdf) NEWMAN, LINN, CHEN September 14, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC and USPTO decision not to grant patent term adjustments to SawStop’s patents affirmed (type C delay extensions). Summary:  SawStop appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Claim, Claim Construction, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) | Leave a comment

ITC decision of non-infringement of functional/capability-type computer claims affirmed; decision as to expired patent found moot

INVT SPE LLC v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC), HTC America, Inc. et al. (Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1903 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1903.OPINION.8-31-2022_1997811.pdf) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN August 31, 2022 Brief Summary:   ITC decision finding no infringement of functional computer claims affirmed; decision regarding expired … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Functional limitations, Importation, International Trade Commission, Method claims, Software | Leave a comment

DC decision of no infringement by Eagle’s ANDA specification and denial of DJ affirmed

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. v. Eagle Pharmceuticals, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2342 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2342.OPINION.8-18-2022_1993064.pdf) MOORE, PROST, HUGHES August 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC finding of no infringement under 271(e)(2) affirmed based on Eagle’s ANDA specification to which Eagle is bound, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Safe Harbor, FDA exemptions (271(e)(1)) | Leave a comment

Assigned claim not broader than asserted claim, DC assignor estoppel decision affirmed

Hologic, Inc., et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2054, -2081 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2054.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990706.pdf) STOLL, CLEVENGER, WALLACH August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   On remand from SCOTUS, assignor estoppel decision affirmed as asserted claim not broader than assigned claim. Summary:  This … Continue reading

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction

TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Limited, et al. Docket No. 2021-2069-70, 2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction. Summary:  TalexMedical appealed … Continue reading

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

DC grant of SJ to Ford vacated and remanded for erroneous claim construction

Ethanol Boosting System, LLC (MIT) v. Ford Motor Company Docket No. 2021-1949 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1949.OPINION.7-18-2022_1979137.pdf) (Non-precedential) MOORE, NEWMAN (D), HUGHES July 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of SJ vacated and remanded due faulty claim construction. Summary: EBS appealed DC order granting … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment