Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1984 (IPR2014-01558) MOORE, CLEVENGER, CHEN June 15, 2017 Brief Summary: Board finding that prior art patent sharing inventor not overcome by uncorroborated inventor declaration affirmed. EmeraChem found not to have had sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard … Continue reading

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

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

IPR2017-00378, IPR00380, IPR2017-00390 U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,999 B2 June 13, 2017 Decision to Insitute IPR Brief Summary: Board decision to institute IPRs against Wyeth’s (Pfizer’s) US 8,562,999 B2 relating to the vaccine Prevenar®. Summary: Each of the ‘378, ‘380 and … Continue reading

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

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2017, -2026, -2027 IPR2014-01226, -01463, -01544; IPR2015-00825, -00852, -00854 REYNA, LINN, CHEN June 6, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s conclusion of invalidity for obviousness based on its claim construction found to be supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. … Continue reading

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

J Kyle Bass et al. (Petitioner) v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Patent Owner)

IPR2016-00254 U.S. Pat. No. 8,476,010B2 Final Written Decision (June 5, 2017) Brief Summary: Board found challenged claims of US 8,476,010B2 relating to formulations of the anesthetic propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) stored in containers having nonreactive, inert closures (sold as Diprivan) invalid for … Continue reading

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

In re: NuVasive, Inc.

Docket No. 2015-1841 (IPR2014-00075) DYK, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: IPR Final Written Decision reversed as based on erroneous claim construction (e.g., expert testimony relied upon was “not about ‘lateral’ in the setting addressed in the ‘767 … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | 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Docket No. 2016-1361 (IPR2014-00504) DYK, PLAGER, REYNA May 31, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s decision of no prior conception vacated and remanded because it did not follow “[t]he rule of reason” which “require[s] consideration of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

Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG

Docket No. 2016-2233 (IPR2015-00150) WALLACH, TARANTO, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: Board FWD of obviousness vacated and remanded because it failed to “set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail”. Summary: Rovalma appealed PTAB IPR Final Written Decision finding the … Continue reading

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