Category Archives: Conception and Reduction to Practice

ATI Technologies ULC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Posted on April 17, 2019 by

Docket No. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608 (IPR2015-00325, -00326, -00330) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH April 11, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB finding of invalidity due to ATI’s lack of diligence before filing its patent applications reversed (e.g., “[t]he PTAB identified no delays” or “gaps … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Diligence, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Posted on January 30, 2019 by

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | Leave a comment

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S

Posted on April 19, 2018 by

Docket No. 2017-1681 (IPR2015-01403) MOORE, LINN, CHEN April 17, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB IPR final written decision (FWD) finding anticipation and obviousness, and rejected Apator’s proffered evidence of prior conception since it was based only on the inventor’s own statements … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Posted on April 5, 2018 by

Docket Nos. 2017-1554, -1556, -1557 (IPR2015-01201; IPR2016-00209, -00962) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 2, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s obviousness determination following IPR affirmed because, e.g., Raytheon did “not explain why the resulting device” (of the prior) “would be rendered inoperable … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Nintendo of America Inc. et al. v. iLife Technologies, Inc.

Posted on December 29, 2017 by

Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others (e.g., “prototype has … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

Art+Com InnovationPool GmbH v. Google LLC

Posted on October 25, 2017 by

Docket Nos. 2017-1016 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 20, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC entry of jury anticipation finding affirmed; finding of no infringement by Google was not reached by the FC panel. Summary: Art+Com (“AC”) appealed DC entry of judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Public Use | Leave a comment

NFC Technology, LLC v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Posted on September 29, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-1808 (IPR2014-01198) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 20, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD of invalidity for obviousness reversed and remanded as sufficient evidence corroborated inventor’s testimony regarding conception, and it must decide whether a prototype embodied the claimed … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment