Category Archives: Claim Construction

Board finding of no obviousness reversed under “known-technique” motivation to combine rationale

Posted on March 14, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG Docket No. 2022-1037 (IPR 2020-00518) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1037.OPINION.3-13-2023_2093578.pdf) NEWMAN, POST, HUGHES March 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Intel did not show PACT’s claims unpatentable for obviousness reversed as prior art shows … Continue reading →

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

DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from Orange Book affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2023-1186 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1186.OPINION.2-24-2023_2085825.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, TARANTO February 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from OB affirmed. Summary:  Jazz appealed DC grant of an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Injunction, Method claims | Leave a comment

DC grant of PI vacated and remanded as Lite-Netics’ infringement allegations not objectively baseless (First Amendment issues relating to customer letters addressed)

Posted on February 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, Holiday Bright Lights (“HBL”) Docket No. 2023-1146 (h https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1146.OPINION.2-17-2023_2082508.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STARK February 17, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC grant of PI vacated and remanded based on the DC’s abuse of discretion in … Continue reading →

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

DC claim construction based on description of invention affirmed; anticipation reversed; trade dress invalidity affirmed

Posted on February 7, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mosaic Brands, Inc., et al. v. Ridge Wallet LLC Docket No. 2022-1001-2 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1001.OPINION.12-20-2022_2050643.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, STARK December 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed based on description of invention “as a whole” in specification.  Anticipation finding based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Trade Dress, Written description | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness finding vacated and remanded, while “means”-related claim construction finding affirmed, each based on the intrinsic evidence

Posted on January 27, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC and Ametek, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2370 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2370.OPINION.1-12-2023_2062188.pdf) CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, STARK January 12, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness determination of “enlarged chamber” vacated and remanded while construction of “means for driving” … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms Board IPR decisions finding P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims obvious

Posted on January 10, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

P Tech, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1102, -1115 (IPR-2020-00649-50) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1102.OPINION.12-15-2022_2048477.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, CUNNINGHAM December 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions of obviousness of P Tech’s robotic surgical instrument claims affirmed. Summary:  P Tech appealed … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on November 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on November 2, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on September 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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