Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

Board IPR decisions finding conception and reduction to practice before critical date affirmed

Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L Docket No. 2021-2356, -2358, -2361, -2363, -22365 (IPR2020-00126, -00128, -00132, -00135, -00137) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2356.OPINION.5-24-2023_2131839.pdf) LOURIE, LYNN, DYK (D) May 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR decisions finding patented invention was conceived and … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Board IPR claim construction (even with harmless error) and obviousness determination affirmed

Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2022-1291 (IPR2020-00922) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1291.OPINION.5-9-2023_2123766.pdf) DYK, BRYSON, PROST May 9, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR claim construction and obviousness determination affirmed; any error in claim construction found to … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision reversed as prior art not shown to be analogous to Sanofi’s claimed invention

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2021-1981 (IPR2019-01657) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1981.OPINION.5-9-2023_2123775.pdf) REYNA, MAYER, CUNNINGHAM May 9, 2023 Brief Summary:   IPR decision finding Sanofi’s claims obvious reversed as Mylan did not show art relied upon was analogous to Sanofi’s … Continue reading

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

DC ineligibility finding regarding “computer-readable” medium reversed, claim construction affirmed

Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., et al. (Red Hat, IBM) Docket No. 2021-2263-67 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2263.OPINION.4-12-2023_2109603.pdf) LOURIE, DYK, STOLL April 12, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC patent ineligibility decision regarding “computer-readable” medium limitation reversed; claim construction affirmed. Summary:  Sequoia appealed judgment … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, comprising, consisting of, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Prosecution History Estoppel, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Indefiniteness and willful infringement findings affirmed; vacated and remanded regarding burden to show art cited in non-instituted IPR could have been found as affirmative defense should be on Ironburg, not Valve

Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation Docket No. 2021-2296, -2297, 2022-1070 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2296.OPINION.4-3-2023_2104462.pdf) LOURIE, CLEVENGER (D), STARK April 3, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding affirmed; vacated and remanded as burden to show prior art relied on in non-instituted IPR … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed

Arbutus Biopharma Corp., et al. v. Modenatx, Inc. FKA Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1183 (IPR2018-00680) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1183.OPINION.4-11-2023_2108936.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, CHEN April 11, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Arbutus’ claims are invalid for inherent anticipation affirmed. Summary:  Arbutus … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Roku did not show Universal’s claims obvious affirmed as based on substantial evidence

Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc. Docket No. 2022-1058 (IPR2019-01615) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1058.OPINION.3-31-2023_2103471.pdf) NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL March 31, 2023 Brief Summary:   PTAB IPR FWD concluding Roku did not show Universal’s remote control claims obvious affirmed as based on substantial evidence. Summary:  … Continue reading

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

DC dismissal of IPR institution decision action affirmed, reversed as to Apple’s improper USPTO rule-making argument

Apple, Inc., et al. (Cisco, Google, Edwards LifeSciences (“Apple”)) v. USPTO Docket No. 2022-1249 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1249.OPINION.3-13-2023_2093598.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STOLL March 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC decision dismissing its action against the USPTO regarding its IPR institution decision affirmed, but reversed … Continue reading

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

Board finding of no obviousness reversed under “known-technique” motivation to combine rationale

Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG Docket No. 2022-1037 (IPR 2020-00518) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1037.OPINION.3-13-2023_2093578.pdf) NEWMAN, POST, HUGHES March 13, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR finding that Intel did not show PACT’s claims unpatentable for obviousness reversed as prior art shows … Continue reading

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

Board finding of no written description of genus claims in priority applications and anticipation affirmed

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Docket No. 2021-2168 (IPR 2017-01712) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2168.OPINION.3-6-2023_2090143.pdf) LOURIE, DYK, STOLL March 6, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board IPR FWD finding UM’s genus claims lack a sufficient written description in priority applications … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Markush, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment