Category Archives: Obviousness

Arctic Cat Inv. V. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1475 MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL December 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of BRP’s JMOL that the asserted claims would have been obvious and that the royalty, willfulness and trebling of damages were improper affirmed. Patent marking issue vacated … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

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-2517-19, -2642, -2644-2646 (IPR2015-00483-00486, -01729, 01732, -01734) DYK, SCHALL, TARANTO December 1, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB’s claim construction affirmed but decisions of no anticipation and obviousness vacated and remanded because it did not provide adequate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Docket No. 2016-2371 (IPR2015-00307) MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL November 30, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board claim construction and conclusion of invalidity for obviousness following IPR affirmed.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

Eli Lilly et al. v. Perrigo / Amneal

Docket No. 2016-2555, -2614 CHEN, PLAGER, HUGHES November 22, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC decision that certain claims are not obvious (e.g., the prior art does not teach away); that certain other claims are obvious (e.g., alternatives theories presented here … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sanofi, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Sandoz Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2722, -2726 PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO November 9, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision finding inducement to infringe based on proposed drug label, no obviousness in view of prior art clinical trial documents, or prosecution history estoppel affirmed. Summary: Sanofi … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | 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