Category Archives: Obviousness

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Docket No. 2016-2747 (IPR2015-01034) PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO October 12, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Claim construction and obviousness determination in PTAB FWD regarding Ignite’s patent affirmed as supported by substantial evidence.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

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

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-1795 NEWMAN (C/D), DYK, TARANTO September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of JMOL to Motorola affirmed with respect to invalidity but reversed as to direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) (e.g., “the end user must be … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-2287 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES September 8, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB obviousness conclusion affirmed (30% reduction limitation is “an observed result on an old process”). Summary: Southwire appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision that claims 1-42 of US 7,557,301 … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment