Category Archives: Conception and Reduction to Practice

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S

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.

Docket Nos. 2017-1554, -1556, -1557 (IPR2015-01201; IPR2016-00209, -00962) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO April 2, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s obviousness determination following IPR affirmed because, e.g., Raytheon did “not explain why the resulting device” (of the prior)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

Docket Nos. 2016-2266 (IPR2015-00109) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN December 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision of reduction to practice before the prior art date for certain claims but reversed as to others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

Docket Nos. 2017-1016 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 20, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC entry of jury anticipation finding affirmed; finding of no infringement by Google was not reached by the FC panel.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)

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

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