Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation

Docket No. 2016-1511 (IPR2014-00877) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK August 4, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of no anticipation of Whirlpool’s patent related to blenders reversed based on analysis after claim construction. Summary: Homeland appealed Board IPR decision that Whirlpool’s US 7,581,688 … Continue reading

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

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania

IPR2016-00458 (US 7,625,558) Final Written Decision July 13, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB FWD found claims of Penn’s ‘558 patent allegedly relating to Lilly’s Erbitux® (centuximab) to be invalid for obviousness. Summary: IPR as to claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, … Continue reading

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

Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1742, -1743, -1744 (IPR2014-00882, -00883, -01011) DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES July 25, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s anticipation/obviousness conclusions following IPR vacated as based on incorrect claim constructions (remanded). Summary: Netlist appealed PTAB IPR final written decision finding certain … Continue reading

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

HTC Corporation et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC

Docket No. 2016-1858 DYK, REYNA, TARANTO July 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB rejection of IPR challenge affirmed based on claim construction (e.g., “[t]he separate naming of two structures in [a] claim strongly implies that the named entities are not … Continue reading

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

Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A.

Docket No. 2016-1769 (IPR2914-01244) DYK, MOORE, REYNA June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Board obviousness decision based on reasoning adopted from Geox’s arguments affirmed. The FC panel also explained that “[t]he Board was not required to limit its motivation to combine … Continue reading

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

Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2250 (IPR2015-00208) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO July 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision holding claims patentable vacated for a lack of a proper analysis of Shinn Fu’s obviousness arguments. Summary: Shinn Fu appeled PTAB IPR decision granting Tire … Continue reading

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

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Cisco, Avaya LG, Toshiba, VIZIO, Hulu, Verizon) v. Straight Path IP

Docket No. 2016-2004 et al. (12 IPRs) PROST, NEWMAN, DYK June 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB final written decisions following IPR proceedings of US 6,108,704; 6,009,469; and 6,131,121 finding of no obviousness based on construction of the “is connected” … Continue reading

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