Category Archives: Expert Testimony

Acoustic’s IPR time-bar arguments waived; anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2020 by

Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1061 (IPR2017-1061) (see also FC Docket Nos. 2019-1059, -1060) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: Appeal based on time-bar arguments not presented to the Board were waived; anticipation … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

“Lay witness” not qualified as an expert cannot testify as to conclusion of obviousness

Posted on February 6, 2020 by

HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Scott D. Fleischman Docket No. 2019-1649 NEWMAN, MOORE, CHEN February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: DC’s limiting jury instructions regarding obviousness because “lay witness” was not qualified as an expert. Summary: HVO appealed DC denial … Continue reading →

Posted in Expert Testimony, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Posted on January 17, 2018 by

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

NOVA Chemicals Corporation, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company

Posted on May 15, 2017 by

Docket No. 2016-1576 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC award of attorney fees to Dow affirmed as NOVA’s litigation position was found to be “objectively baseless” under Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: NOVA appealed DC award of … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees, Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (“CAD”) v. Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Posted on February 28, 2017 by

IPR2015-02776 (US 7,582,621B2) Final Written Decision February 23, 2017 Brief Summary: Board found CAD had shown invalidity for obviousness of the ‘621 claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: CAD petitioned for IPR of Anacor’s US 7,582,621 B2 on … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company

Posted on April 25, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1553 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL April 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction rejected “because it eliminates whole aspects of the claimed design”. DC exclusion of expert witness found not to be an abuse of discretion because of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Design Patents, Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc.

Posted on April 22, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1585, 2015-1586 IPR2013-000407 (8,408,598), IPR2013-00411 (8,408,343) REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN April 5, 2016 Brief Summary: Board claim construction of ‘343 claim 7 reversed (“We do not see how the claim language can mean anything else without obvious strain. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Posted on April 18, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1079 DYK, MOORE, STOLL April 7, 2016 Update: Cert. denied 1/17/17 (16-489) Brief Summary: DC refusal to grant a new trial under FRCP 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(3) (fraud) after false expert testimony reversed and remanded. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Posted on September 28, 2015 by

Docket No. 2013-1648, -1651 MOORE, MAYER, LINN September 21, 2015 Brief Summary: Jury findings / DC decisions affirmed regarding $15 million damages infringement award to Summit 6 affirmed. Summary: Jury found Summit’s US 7,765,482 five asserted claims relating to processing … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Expert Testimony, Preamble | Leave a comment

Virnetx, Inc. and SAIC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Apple Inc.

Posted on September 18, 2014 by

Docket No. 2013-1489 PROST, CHEN September 16, 2014 Brief Summary: DC claim construction finding reversed based on intrinsic evidence (specification). Infringment under DOE finding reversed because expert testimony did not show function in same “way”. Damages award vacated because based … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Expert Testimony, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment