Category Archives: Collateral estoppel

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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