Category Archives: Inter Parties Review (IPR)

CRFD Res. V. USPTO (IPR2015-00055 (“Iron Dome FWD”)); CRFD Res. v. DISH et al. (IPR2015-00627 (“DISH FWD”)); Hulu/Spotify v. CRFD Res. (IPR2015-00259 (“HULU FWD”))

Docket Nos. 2016-2198, 2016-2298, 2016-2437 DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 5, 2017 Brief summary: Findings of no invalidity in two IPRs (Iron Dome and DISH) affirmed, but Hulu FWD finding of no obviousness reversed because the PTAB “failed to perform a … Continue reading

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

Microsoft Corporation and IBM v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2515, -2517-19, -2642, -2644-2646 (IPR2015-00483-00486, -01729, 01732, -01734) DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 1, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s claim construction affirmed but decisions of no anticipation and obviousness vacated and remanded because it did not provide adequate explanations. … Continue reading

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

AIP Acquisition LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2371 (IPR2015-00307) MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL November 30, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board claim construction and conclusion of invalidity for obviousness following IPR affirmed. Summary: AIP appealed PTAB decision invalidating the claims of expired US 7,269,247 relating to the … Continue reading

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

PTO issues “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products”

PTO Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products Update following Oct. 4, 2017 FC (en banc) opinion (Aqua Products, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO), Docket No. 2015-1177 (IPR2013-00159): USPTO issued guidance on Nov. 21, 2017, explaining that … Continue reading

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.

IPR2016-01027 and -28 (US 9,060,976 B2) Final Written Decisions November 3, 2017 Brief summary: Two separate PTAB FWDs found claim 1 of Purdue’s ‘976 patent obviousness based on different combinations of prior art. Summary: These Final Written Decisions (FWDs) relate … Continue reading

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

Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Case IPR2017-00731 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,441 B1) Decision Granting Request for Rehearing October 26, 2017 Brief summary: Petition for Rehearing granted as prior decision lacked of construction of the limitation “in the absence of an anthracycline derivative” which the Board … Continue reading

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

Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Docket No. 2-15-2072 (IPR2014-00245) PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH October 24, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB denial of SP’s Motion to Amend because SP did not show the proposed new claims “recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment