Category Archives: IPR

Ignite USA, LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC

Docket No. 2016-2747 (IPR2015-01034) PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO October 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Claim construction and obviousness determination in PTAB FWD regarding Ignite’s patent affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. Summary: Ignite appealed PTAB final written decision following IPR finding … Continue reading

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

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2613 (IPR2015-00650) NEWMAN, DYK, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that Owens did not show obviousness during IPR reversed (not remanded) under a corrected claim construction. Summary: Fast Felt sued Owens for infringement of its US … Continue reading

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

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Hass Company

Docket No. 2015-1983, -2001 PROST, NEWMAN, TARANTO October 11, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision following IPR sustaining the patentability of Rohm’s patents relating to polymers for use in paints and the like affirmed (e.g., Organik did not present any “evidence … Continue reading

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

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Docket No. 2015-1177 (IPR2013-00159) En banc Opinion October 4, 2017 Brief summary: Earlier appeal of IPR decision remanded “to the Board to issue a final decision under § 318(a) assessing the patentability of the proposed substituted claims without placing the … Continue reading

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

NFC Technology, LLC v. Joseph Matal (USPTO)

Docket No. 2016-1808 (IPR2014-01198) LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL September 20, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD of invalidity for obviousness reversed and remanded as sufficient evidence corroborated inventor’s testimony regarding conception, and it must decide whether a prototype embodied the claimed … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A.

Case No. IPR2016-00712 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,927,592 B2) Final Written Decision September 21, 2017 Brief summary: FWD concludes Mylan showed the ‘592 claims are invalid for obviousness. Summary: The ‘592 patent is one of three patents listed on the FDA … Continue reading

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

Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., et al.

2016-1749, -1751, -2039 (IPR Nos. 2014-01178, -01297, -01449) LOURIE, WALLACH, STOLL September 6, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board FWD of obviousness affirmed for various reasons. Summary: Enova appealed final written decisions (FWDs) after IPR that claims 1-53 of its US … Continue reading

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