Category Archives: IPR

Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”

University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC Docket No. 2020-2243 (IPR2019-00431) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2243.OPINION.11-4-2021_1859852.pdf) REYNA, CLEVENGER, STOLL November 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness FWD reversed as “pure conjecture coupled with hindsight reliance”. Summary:  University of Strathclyde (US) appealed Board final … Continue reading

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

FC panel finds PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d)

In Re:  Vivint, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1992 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1992.OPINION.9-29-2021_1841724.pdf) MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY September 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTO has the authority to reconsider ex parte reexamination under § 325(d). Summary:  Vivint appealed USPTO denial of its request to dismiss Alarm.com’s request … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for new claim construction; algorithm not required for circuitry

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1589-94 (IPR2018-01326-30, -01340) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, STOLL July 27, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness decisions vacated and remanded as Qualcomm had no notice of change in claim construction; “algorithm … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly considering the commercial sales evidence

Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd. et al. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1289, -1290 (IPR2018-00992, -00993) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1289.OPINION.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, REYNA July 22, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board obviousness IPR decisions reversed for lacking a proper explanation and improperly … Continue reading

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

FC panel finds MSFT’s IPR obviousness arguments lack particularity and affirms Board claim construction and no anticipation finding

Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC Docket No. 2020-1928 (IPR2018-01594) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1928.OPINION.6-17-2021_1792142.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY June 17, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision finding MSFT failed to show FG’s claims to be unpatentable affirmed. Summary:  MSFT appealed PTAB (“Board”) decision that … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding Baxter’s claims nonobvious reversed due in part to erroneous claim construction

Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Baxter Corporation Englewood Docket No. 2020-1937 (IPR2019-00119) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1937.OPINION.5-28-2021_1784040.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK May 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR decision of no obviousness reversed based in part on erroneous claim construction. Summary:  Becton appealed PTAB (“Board”) IPR … Continue reading

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

IPR decision finding certain of Uniloc’s claims obvious based on disputed claim construction, and others non-obviousness, affirmed

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc. (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1403, -1404 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1403.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776581.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, REYNA May 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB IPR claim construction and obviousness of certain claims, and nonobviousness of other claims, affirmed. Summary:  Uniloc appealed … Continue reading

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

Apple’s appeals of IPR decisions dismissed for lack of Article III standing

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1561, -1642 (IPR2018-01279, -01252) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1561.OPINION.4-7-2021_1759839.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 7, 2021 Brief Summary:  Apple’s appeal of IPR FWDs dismissed due to global settlement agreement with Qualcomm (e.g., “displeasure with a license provision” does … Continue reading

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

Obviousness conclusion reversed as prior art was not enabled for claimed invention

Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1755 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1755.OPINION.4-16-2021_1764430.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, HUGHES April 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decision reversed as prior art was not enabled. Summary:  Raytheon appealed IPR final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

Speculative arguments not enough to provide Apple with standing to appeal IPR decisions

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated Docket No. 2020-1561, -1642 (IPR2018-01279, -01252) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1561.OPINION.4-7-2021_1759839.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 7, 2021 Brief Summary:  Apple’s appeal of two IPR decisions dismissed for lack of standing in view of license agreement and speculative arguments related … Continue reading

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