Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

IPR claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed (insufficient evidence of nexus between claims and license agreements)

Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1732, -1752 (IPR2017-01669, -02044 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 8, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed (e.g., insufficient evidence nexus between claims and secondary considerations (license agreements)). Summary: … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Anacor’s KERYDIN® patents invalid for obviousness affirmed

Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwing Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2019-2264-2267 (IPR2018-00168-00171, -01358-01361) PROST, NEWMAN (D), HUGHES August 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: IPR decisions finding Anacor’s tavaborole (5%) (KERYDIN®) patents invalid for obviousness affirmed (e.g., “concentration is a result-effective variable”). … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for insufficient explanation

Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., et al. Docket No. 2019-1467, -1468 (IPR2017-01409-10, -01736-7, IPR2018-00338-9) MOORE, CHEN, STOLL July 31, 2020 Brief Summary: IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as Board’s explanation was not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”. … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision based on common sense modification of prior art affirmed

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1935, -1936 (IPR2017-01275, -01276) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES June 26, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision based in part on common sense affirmed. Summary: B/E appealed Board final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness and non-obviousness findings affirmed (e.g,. the Board “explained why”)

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., Andrei Iancu (USPTO, intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1582, -1635 (IPR2017-01812, -01920) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR final written decisions finding certain of Boston’s claim unpatentable for obviousness and … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision affirmed; Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d)

ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC Docket No. 2019-1659 (IPR2019-02197) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES May 19, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed. Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d). Summary: ESIP appealed Board IPR decision … Continue reading

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

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC Docket No. 2019-1544 (IPR2017-01440) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness FWD affirmed based on SRAM’s secondary evidence (e.g., “industry skepticism and subsequent praise and long-felt need”). Summary: Fox … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness findings affirmed except for one claim that “describes a stand-alone alternative” to means-plus-function limitation

Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB, et al. Docket No. 2019-1105, -1106 (IPR2017-01018, -01019) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 15, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness findings affirmed, while its analysis of one means-plus-function claim vacated and remanded. … Continue reading

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

Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed, claim construction arguments waived

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., USPTO as Intervenor Docket No. 2019-1584 (IPR2017-01899) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed (e.g., BSN “waived any claim construction argument…by failing to … Continue reading

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

IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed (without prejudice) litigation

Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2019-1063 (IPR2017-00768) PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed … Continue reading

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