Category Archives: Claim Construction

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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

Enzo Biochem Inc et al. v. Applera Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1881 PROST, O’MALLEY, WALLACH August 2, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to Applera on remand following Applera’s appeal of a $48.6 million adverse judgment affirmed since, e.g., the DOE “cannot embrace a structure that is … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

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

Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1742, -1743, -1744 (IPR2014-00882, -00883, -01011) DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES July 25, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s anticipation/obviousness conclusions following IPR vacated as based on incorrect claim constructions (remanded). Summary: Netlist appealed PTAB IPR final written decision finding certain … Continue reading

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

HTC Corporation et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC

Docket No. 2016-1858 DYK, REYNA, TARANTO July 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB rejection of IPR challenge affirmed based on claim construction (e.g., “[t]he separate naming of two structures in [a] claim strongly implies that the named entities are not … Continue reading

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

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1916, -2007 DYK, REYNA, WALLACH July 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC construction of “usage rights” and denial of CG’s Motion for a New Trial regrading to multiple patents relating to digital rights management for computers and other … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A.

Docket No. 2016-1769 (IPR2914-01244) DYK, MOORE, REYNA June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Board obviousness decision based on reasoning adopted from Geox’s arguments affirmed. The FC panel also explained that “[t]he Board was not required to limit its motivation to combine … Continue reading

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