Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Board properly decided to deny institution and dismiss IPRs on SAS remand instead of instituting on all grounds

BioDelivery Sciences Int., Inc. v. Aquesitive Therapeutics, Inc., FKA Monsol Rx, LLC Docket No. 2019-1643-45 (IPR2015-00165, -00168, -00169) NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, REYNA (Order) August 26, 2019 Brief Summary: On remand under SAS after instituting IPRs on less than all the … Continue reading

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

Board IPR decision vacated and remanded for erroneous claim construction; negative limitation not disclosed by prior art.

WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1617 (IPR2016-01238) NEWMAN, CHEN, STOLL August 26, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR decision finding WAG’s claims invalid for anticipation reversed due to erroneous claim construction (e.g., the definition “comes … Continue reading

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

APA violation and unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene); Board IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Arthrocare Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1854 (IPR2016-00918) DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: Anthrex’s due process and constitutional challenges to IPR rejected; Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed. … Continue reading

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

Board IPR anticipation and obviousness decisions affirmed; unconstitutionality of IPR arguments rejected (as in Celgene)

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Holozyme) Docket No. 2018-1232, -1233 (IPR2016-00820, -00822) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 16, 2019 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary: Board decisions of invalidity of Enzo’s claims for anticipation and obviousness affirmed; arguments that retroactive … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms obviousness of Celgene’s claims and finds IPRs against pre-AIA patents not unconstitutional

Celgene Corp. v. Laura A. Peter (USPTO) Docket No. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (IPR2015-01096, -01102, -01103, -01092) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 30, 2019 Brief Summary: Board obviousness determinations of Celgene’s thalidomide administration-related claims affirmed; arguments that IPRs are unconstitutional for … Continue reading

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

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

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

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed, TQ Delta had “opportunity to be heard”

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC Docket No. 2018-1799 (IPR2016-01470) NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding TQ Delta’s communications systems claims obvious affirmed. Summary: TQ Delta appealed Board IPR Final Written Decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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