Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Posted on September 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed

Posted on September 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Best Medical Int., Inc. v. Elekta Inc. Docket No. 2021-2099, -2100 (IPR2020-0070-72) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2099.OPINION.8-26-2022_1996028.pdf) HUGHES, LINN, STOLL August 26, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decisions affirmed, appeal regarding canceled claim dismissed. Summary:  BMI appealed two IPR Board decisions finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision of no anticipation affirmed (untimely arguments, portions of prior art relied upon not “by another”)

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LSI Corporation and Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Docket No. 2021-2057 (IPR2017-01068) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2057.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990664.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision that LSI did not timely raise arguments or show portions … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction

Posted on August 4, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Limited, et al. Docket No. 2021-2069-70, 2021-2109-10 (IPR2020-0028, -00030) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2069.OPINION.7-22-2022_1981627.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, SCHALL, REYNA July 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR obviousness decision vacated-in-part and remanded due to incorrect claim construction. Summary:  TalexMedical appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness conclusion vacated for incorrect claim construction, grant of SJ regarding jurisdiction vacated

Posted on June 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Univ. of Massachusetts, Carmel Labs., LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1969 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1969.OPINION.6-13-2022_1964183.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO June 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding vacated due to improper claim construction and grant of SJ for … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Wherein, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed

Posted on June 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal (USPTO) Docket No. 2020-2334-40 (IPR2019-00578-82) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2334.OPINION.5-24-2022_1955796.pdf) (Non-Precedential) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO May 24, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR findings of obviousness based on inherency affirmed. Summary: Cornell appealed USPTO Board final written decisions … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success)

Posted on June 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1995, -1997 (IPR2020-00050, -00051) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1995.OPINION.5-23-2022_1955050.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), REYNA, HUGHES May 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board IPR final written … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed (analogous art, motivation to combine)

Posted on May 31, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ethicon LLC and Cilag GmbH Int. (“Ethicon”) v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1601 (IPR2019-00991) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1601.OPINION.5-19-2022_1953841.pdf) (Non-precedential) NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, STOLL May 19, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding of invalidity for obviousness affirmed. Summary:  Ethicon appealed USPTO Board … Continue reading →

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

Termination of IPR outside of FC jurisdiction, including regarding sanctions

Posted on May 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1759 (IPR2015-00826) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1759.OPINION.5-13-2022_1951471.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, STOLL May 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   Appeal dismissed as FC lacked jurisdiction over IPR termination. Summary:  Atlanta Gas appealed USPTO IPR decision termination … Continue reading →

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

IPR finding of no obviousness reversed as “generic industry skepticism cannot, standing alone, preclude a finding of motivation to combine”

Posted on May 3, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1732 (IPR2019-1533) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1732.OPINION.4-29-2022_1943629.pdf) DYK, PROST, REYNA (D) April 29, 2022 Brief Summary:   IPR finding of no obviousness reversed and remanded as industry skepticism was too general and not specific … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Medical Devices, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment