Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”

Posted on November 8, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC Docket No. 2020-2243 (IPR2019-00431) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2243.OPINION.11-4-2021_1859852.pdf) REYNA, CLEVENGER, STOLL November 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”. Summary:  University of Strathclyde (US) appealed Board final … Continue reading →

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

FC panel finds PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d)

Posted on October 8, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re:  Vivint, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1992 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1992.OPINION.9-29-2021_1841724.pdf) MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY September 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d). Summary:  Vivint appealed USPTO denial of its request to dismiss Alarm.com’s request … Continue reading →

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

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for new claim construction; algorithm not required for circuitry

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

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1589-94 (IPR2018-01326-30, -01340) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, STOLL July 27, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness decisions vacated and remanded as Qualcomm had no notice of change in claim construction; “algorithm … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly considering the commercial sales evidence

Posted on July 23, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd. et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1289, -1290 (IPR2018-00992, -00993) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1289.OPINION.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA July 22, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board obviousness IPR decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly … Continue reading →

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

FC panel finds MSFT’s IPR obviousness arguments lack particularity and affirms Board claim construction and no anticipation finding

Posted on June 23, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC Docket No. 2020-1928 (IPR2018-01594) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1928.OPINION.6-17-2021_1792142.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY June 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision finding MSFT failed to show FG’s claims to be unpatentable affirmed. Summary:  MSFT appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision that … Continue reading →

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

IPR decision finding Baxter’s claims nonobvious reversed due in part to erroneous claim construction

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

Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Baxter Corporation Englewood Docket No. 2020-1937 (IPR2019-00119) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1937.OPINION.5-28-2021_1784040.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK May 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision of no obviousness reversed based in part on erroneous claim construction. Summary:  Becton appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR … Continue reading →

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

IPR decision finding certain of Uniloc’s claims obvious based on disputed claim construction, and others non-obviousness, affirmed

Posted on May 25, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc. (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1403, -1404 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1403.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776581.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, REYNA May 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR claim construction and obviousness of certain claims, and nonobviousness of other claims, affirmed. Summary:  Uniloc appealed … Continue reading →

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

Apple’s appeals of IPR decisions dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Posted on May 4, 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 IPR FWDs dismissed due to global settlement agreement with Qualcomm (e.g., “displeasure with a license provision” does … Continue reading →

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

Obviousness conclusion reversed as prior art was not enabled for claimed invention

Posted on April 21, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1755 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1755.OPINION.4-16-2021_1764430.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, HUGHES April 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decision reversed as prior art was not enabled. Summary:  Raytheon appealed IPR final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading →

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

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