Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

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

Posted on July 1, 2020 by

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”)

Posted on June 9, 2020 by

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Iancu (USPTO, intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1582, -1635 (IPR2017-01812, -01920) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR final written decisions finding certain of Boston’s claim unpatentable for obviousness and … Continue reading →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

Posted on June 2, 2020 by

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
Posted on May 29, 2020 by

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC Docket No. 2019-1544 (IPR2017-01440) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness FWD affirmed based on SRAM’s secondary evidence (e.g., “industry skepticism and subsequent praise and long-felt need”).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

Posted on May 28, 2020 by

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

Posted on May 20, 2020 by

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

Posted on May 7, 2020 by

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

Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Posted on April 30, 2020 by

Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Docket No. 2019-1513, -1514 (IPR2017=01357, -01358) REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 27, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: Pfizer’s appeal of IPR decision finding it did not show invalidity of Chugai’s protein purification claims dismissed for … Continue reading →

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

Public FDA hearing is a printed publication, Hulu IPR decision does not apply to examination

Posted on April 8, 2020 by

Ex parte Antonio J. Grillo-Lopez Appeal 2018-006082 (Appln. No. 13/524,837) Precedential (designated April 7, 2020) Brief Summary: Public FDA hearing held to be printed publication and “the framework set forth in the Hulu decision for IPR proceedings does not apply … Continue reading →

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

IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision

Posted on April 1, 2020 by

Genentech, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2019-1263, -1265, -1267, -1270 IPRs 2017-00731, -01121, -02063, -00737, -01122, -01960 LOURIE, MOORE, WALLACH March 26, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction (e.g., “effective amount”), obviousness conclusion and denial of amendment … Continue reading →

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