Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Docket No. 2017-1671 (several others) (IPR2015-00545-48, -00551, -00554, -01903) NEWMAN, LOURIE, REYNA July 13, 2018 Brief summary: Board obviousness decision in several final written decisions affirmed (“no reason to exercise any discretion to remand the non-instituted claims or grounds sua … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-1180, -1181 (IPR2016-00921, -00922) MOORE, WALLACH TARANTO July 2, 2018 Brief summary: FC granted the motion to remand the Board’s decision with instructions to “properly issue a final written decision as to all grounds raised in Adidas’s petitions” … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Elbrus International Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Docket No. 2017-1855 (IPR2015-01524) REYNA, BRYSON, HUGHES June 27, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board IPR FWD finding Elbrus’s claims obvious affirmed (e.g., no teaching away as “nothing in Sukegawa discourages precharging”). Summary: Elbrus appealed Board IPR final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc.

Docket No. 2017-1341, -1403 (IPR2015-01190) PROST, MOORE, STOLL June 19, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s finding of obviousness of claims 1-8, and non-obviousness of claims 9-10 affirmed. Board found to have erred because the pre-Aqua (FC 2017) FWD “improperly placed the … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry

Docket No. 2017-1169, -1170 (IPR2015-00780, -00783) TARANTO, PLAGER, CHEN June 11, 2018 Brief summary: FC panel concluded that “[t]he record does not show that the Board fully considered all of the relevant factors” in determining whether slides presented at a … Continue reading

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

PGS Geophysical AS v. USPTO

Docket No. 2016-2470, -2472, -2474 (IPR2015-00309, -00310, -0311) WALLACH, TARANTO, STOLL June 7, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision of obviousness affirmed. PTAB decision to only review certain claims and grounds included in IPR Petition not to be error in view … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

Case Nos. IPR2017-00378, -00380, and -00390 (Final Written Decisions regarding US 8,562,999) June 8, 2018 Brief summary: Claims 1-17 and 19-22, but not claim 18, of Wyeth’s US 8,562,999 relating to its PREVNAR® vaccine found invalid for obviousness in three … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment