Category Archives: Claim Construction

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

IPR2017-00378, IPR00380, IPR2017-00390 U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,999 B2 June 13, 2017 Decision to Insitute IPR Brief Summary: Board decision to institute IPRs against Wyeth’s (Pfizer’s) US 8,562,999 B2 relating to the vaccine Prevenar®. Summary: Each of the ‘378, ‘380 and … Continue reading

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

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2017, -2026, -2027 IPR2014-01226, -01463, -01544; IPR2015-00825, -00852, -00854 REYNA, LINN, CHEN June 6, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s conclusion of invalidity for obviousness based on its claim construction found to be supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. … Continue reading

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

In re: NuVasive, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1841 (IPR2014-00075) DYK, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: IPR Final Written Decision reversed as based on erroneous claim construction (e.g., expert testimony relied upon was “not about ‘lateral’ in the setting addressed in the ‘767 … Continue reading

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

Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG

Docket No. 2016-2233 (IPR2015-00150) WALLACH, TARANTO, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: Board FWD of obviousness vacated and remanded because it failed to “set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail”. Summary: Rovalma appealed PTAB IPR Final Written Decision finding the … Continue reading

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

Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

IPR2016-00172 U.S. Pat. No. 8,889,135B2 May 17, 2017 Final Written Decision (IPR granted May 17, 2016) Brief Summary: Final Written Decision after IPR finds claims 1-5 of Abbvie’s US 8,889,135B2 relating to Humira® unpatentable for obviousness. Summary: Coherus requested IPR … Continue reading

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

Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1599 MOORE, LINN, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ on non-infringement to Apple affirmed since “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be relied on to support a finding of … Continue reading

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

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1750 REYNA, MAYER, HUGHES May 9, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB’s incorporation of “any applicable United States FDA standard” into the term “aseptic” where “the specification twice defines the term ‘aseptic’ as the United States ‘FDA level of … Continue reading

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