Category Archives: Conception and Reduction to Practice

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Docket No. 2016-1361 (IPR2014-00504) DYK, PLAGER, REYNA May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of no prior conception vacated and remanded because it did not follow “[t]he rule of reason” which “require[s] consideration of all pertinent evidence” (e.g., “[d]ocuments … Continue reading

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

Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-2043 (IPR2014-00233) MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY November 15, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” vacated and remanded as the standard is only “reasonable”, not “continuous”. Claim construction determination also vacated and remanded … Continue reading

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

REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj

Docket No. 2015-1773 (IPR2013-00578) PROST, TARANTO, CHEN November 8, 2016 Brief Summary: Board determination that certain claims were anticipated affirmed because “a person of ordinary skill could readily convert Craig’s area percetages to the weight percentages recited in the claims … Continue reading

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

Hoyt A. Fleming v. Escort Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1331, -1371 TARANTO, BRYSON, HUGHES December 24, 2014 Brief Summary: Evidence of prior invention was found to be sufficient and there was no evidence “suppression, concealment, or abandonment” between conception and reduction to practive. Fleming’s failure to “appreciate … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Reissue | Leave a comment

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1593, -1594, -1595, -1598 O’MALLEY, WALLACH, TARANTO February 24, 2014 Brief Summary: Term “solvate” found not to require any “performance property…and hence raises no issue of insufficnet structural, creation-process, or other descriptions to support such a property” (e.g., … Continue reading

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