Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Speculative arguments not enough to provide Apple with standing to appeal IPR decisions

Posted on April 13, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1561, -1642 (IPR2018-01279, -01252) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1561.OPINION.4-7-2021_1759839.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 7, 2021 Brief Summary:  Apple’s appeal of two IPR decisions dismissed for lack of standing in view of license agreement and speculative arguments related … Continue reading →

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

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Posted on March 26, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

IPR anticipation finding affirmed as negative limitation lacks support; refusal to enter amended claims as anticipated reversed due to improper analysis

Posted on March 24, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1600 (IPR2018-00936) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1600.OPINION.3-15-2021_1747758.pdf) (Non-Precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL March 15, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR finding of anticipation based on claim construction affirmed (e.g., negative limitation not supported); reversed and remanded as to proposed … Continue reading →

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

FC panel reverses IPR finding of no obviousness and vacates decision as to dependent claims that the Board did not discuss separately

Posted on February 24, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC Docket No. 2019-1927 (IPR2017-02125) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1927.OPINION.2-18-2021_1735559.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA February 18, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision of no obviousness reversed as to independent claims and vacated the decision as to the dependent claims (e.g., … Continue reading →

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

Board correctly determined references on website were publicly accessible; improper change of grounds vacated and remanded

Posted on February 9, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1160 (IPR2018-00696) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1160.OPINION.2-1-2021_1726200.pdf) MOORE, BRYSON, CHEN February 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board public accessibility finding affirmed; anticipation determination vacated and remanded for improper change in grounds from obviousness. Summary:  M&K … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR FWD obviousness findings affirmed (e.g., no teaching away)

Posted on February 3, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2302-5, -2452 (IPR2019-00291, -00318, -00322, -00385, -00797) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2302.OPINION.2-1-2021_1726127.pdf) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, REYNA February 1, 2021 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decisions affirmed (e.g., no teaching away). Summary:  Columbia appealed two IPR final written decisions … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR FWD remanded regarding reasonable expectation of success

Posted on January 29, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

KeyNetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2020-1271 (IPR2018-00986) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1271.OPINION.1-27-2021_1723945.pdf) DYK, CLEVENGER, O’MALLEY January 27, 2021 (Non-Precedential) Brief Summary:  IPR final written decision remanded for finding on reasonable expectation of success (“The Board erred in assigning no burden … Continue reading →

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

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Posted on January 22, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

IPR decision vacated and remanded for failure to compare “purposes or problems” of patent and alleged analogous art

Posted on November 13, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC Docket No. 2020-1104 (IPR2018-00708) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1104.OPINION.11-9-2020_1682293.pdf) PROST, DYK, HUGHES November 9, 2020 Brief Summary:  Board IPR decision vacated and remanded as it “failed to properly identify and compare the purposes or problems” of … Continue reading →

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

IPR FWD invalidating Immunex’s “human antibody” claims invalidated (“nothing in the claim’s language restricts ‘human antibodies’ to those that are fully human”)

Posted on October 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1749, -1777 (IPR2017-01879, -01884) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 13, 2020 Brief Summary:  Immunex appealed two IPR final written decisions (FWDs) invalidating the challenged claims of US 8,679,487 … Continue reading →

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