Category Archives: Claim Differentiation

DC indefiniteness conclusion vacated for incorrect claim construction, grant of SJ regarding jurisdiction vacated

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

Univ. of Massachusetts, Carmel Labs., LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1969 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1969.OPINION.6-13-2022_1964183.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO June 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding vacated due to improper claim construction and grant of SJ for … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Wherein, Written description | Leave a comment

DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages reversed based on attorney opinion; reasonably royalty affirmed

Posted on May 12, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc. et al. (“Venture”) Docket No. 2020-1640, -1641 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1640.OPINION.4-29-2022_1943607.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL April 29, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Experimental Use, Expert Testimony, Infringement, Lost Profits, On-Sale Bar, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Docket No. 2021-1864 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1864.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934126.pdf) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of indefiniteness reversed, but induced infringement, exclusion of expert witness report and damages findings affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Medical Devices, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties, Written description | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decision reversed, another affirmed along with claim construction decisions

Posted on April 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Surgalign Spine Technologies, Inc. et al. v. LifeNet Health Docket No. 2021-1117-18, -1236 (IPR2019-00569, -00570) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1117.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934157.pdf) (Non-Precedential) NEWMAN (D), SCHALL, PROST April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   IPR obviousness decision reversed, claim construction affirmed, other no obviousness decision affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading →

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

DC decisions reversed-in-part due to improper claim construction findings

Posted on January 19, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., DBA Supertool USA / Juggernaut Docket No. 2021-1963 and 2021-1987 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1963.OPINION.1-14-2022_1893196.pdf) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN January 14, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decisions reversed due to improper claim construction. Summary:  Evolusion appealed DC grant of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Claim Vitiation, Written description | Leave a comment

DC erroneously constructed “antibody” and “antibody fragment”, FC panel finds

Posted on September 9, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Baxalta, Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1527MOORE, PLAGER, WALLACH August 27, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC non-infringement finding vacated and remanded due to erroneous construction of “antibody” and “antibody fragment”. Summary:    Baxalta appealed DC judgment based … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Posted on February 3, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading →

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

RealTime Data, LLC, DBA IXO vs. USPTO

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1154 (IPR2016-00783) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 10, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decision finding RT’s patent invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: RealTime’s (RT) appealed Board final written decision (FWD) finding the challenged claims of US 6,597,812 relating to … Continue reading →

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

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC/Genzyme et al. v. Immunex Corp.

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2017-01879 and -01884 (US 8,679,487 B2) February 15, 2018 Brief summary: Sanofi’s IPR petitions against Immunex’s ‘487 patent directed to anti-IL-4R antibodies instituted on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. Sanofi’s previously denied IPR petition found not to prohibit filing of … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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