Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

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

Posted on June 1, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on May 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on May 9, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 27, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 17, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 5, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 23, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 14, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 8, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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