Category Archives: Collateral estoppel

Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

Posted on May 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-1551 and -1552 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA May 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC claim construction findings and grant of SJ of non-infringement to Sandoz regarding its Neupogen® and Neulasta® biosimilars affirmed. Summary: Amgen appealed two DC decisions finding Sandoz’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Biosimilars, Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Infringement | Leave a comment

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Posted on December 13, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-2490, -2494 (IPR2016-00331) MOORE, CHEN, HUGHES December 10, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s conclusions VirnetX’s claims were shown obvious by Apple affirmed as VirnetX was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether prior art RFC2401 was a § 102(b) printed publication … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel | Leave a comment

Arcelormittal v. AK Steel Corporation

Posted on November 19, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1637 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES Nov. 14, 2018 (sealed opinion issued Nov. 5, 2018) Brief summary: DC decision of SJ based on collateral estoppel to AK vacated and remanded due to new evidence that the accused products may have … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Worlds Inc. v. Bungie Inc.

Posted on September 10, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583 (IPR2015-01264, -01319, -01321) PROST, O’MALLEY, TARANTO September 7, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s IPR invalidation decisions vacated and remanded (“the Board should first address whether Worlds is estopped from arguing the real-party-in-interest issue” and “then reevaluate … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

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

Posted on March 16, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1193 (IPR2015-00249) DYK, REYNA, CHEN March 13, 2018 Brief summary: Citing Omega Eng’g (FC 2003) holding “that the same construed meaning should generally attach to the same claim term in related patents”, the FC panel vacated and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC

Posted on January 30, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1039 (IPR2015-00592) DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 25, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that dependent claims were not shown to be unpatentable vacated and remanded “[s]ince the patentability of [independent] claims 1 and 17 was the sole basis for … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation v. Power Integrations, Inc.

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

Docket No. 2017-1002 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA April 21, 2017 Motion Panel Order (Precedential) Brief Summary: PTAB “ordered to dismiss the reexamination of claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the ‘972 patent” (for which a final decision has already been … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Phil-Insul Corp., DBA IntegraSpec v. Airlite Plastics Co., Formtech, LLC

Posted on April 20, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-2037 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH April 14, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision of collateral estoppel (CE) affirmed. Rule 36 judgment can serve as a basis for CE decisions. The FC panel also declined IS’s “request to reconstrue” the disputed … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Financial Company et al.

Posted on March 23, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1077 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN March 7, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) affirmed under Fourth Circuit law and finding of ineligibility under under § 101 affirmed under the two-step Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Patentability | Leave a comment

Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc. (Akorn, Hi-Tech Pharm., Apotex)

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953 patent (“Sandoz, Inc. has not … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Article III disputes, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment