Category Archives: Obviousness

IPR obviousness decision based on common sense modification of prior art affirmed

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1935, -1936 (IPR2017-01275, -01276) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES June 26, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision based in part on common sense affirmed. Summary: B/E appealed Board final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness and non-obviousness findings affirmed (e.g,. the Board “explained why”)

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., Andrei Iancu (USPTO, intervenor) Docket No. 2019-1582, -1635 (IPR2017-01812, -01920) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 29, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR final written decisions finding certain of Boston’s claim unpatentable for obviousness and … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness decision affirmed; Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d)

ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC Docket No. 2019-1659 (IPR2019-02197) LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES May 19, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness decision affirmed. Board’s real-party-in-interest determination not appealable under § 314(d). Summary: ESIP appealed Board IPR decision … Continue reading

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

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC Docket No. 2019-1544 (IPR2017-01440) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness FWD affirmed based on SRAM’s secondary evidence (e.g., “industry skepticism and subsequent praise and long-felt need”). Summary: Fox … Continue reading

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

IPR obviousness findings affirmed except for one claim that “describes a stand-alone alternative” to means-plus-function limitation

Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB, et al. Docket No. 2019-1105, -1106 (IPR2017-01018, -01019) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 15, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness findings affirmed, while its analysis of one means-plus-function claim vacated and remanded. … Continue reading

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

Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed, claim construction arguments waived

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., USPTO as Intervenor Docket No. 2019-1584 (IPR2017-01899) LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY May 18, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding BSN’s claims obvious affirmed (e.g., BSN “waived any claim construction argument…by failing to … Continue reading

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

IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed (without prejudice) litigation

Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2019-1063 (IPR2017-00768) PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB IPR decision of no obviousness vacated and remanded; Grit found to have Article III standing based on previously dismissed … Continue reading

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

Non-obviousness finding for Relistor® OB-listed formulation patent reversed due to structural and functional similarity to prior art compounds

Valeant Pharm. Int., Salix Pharm., Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., et al., Actavis LLC Docket No. 2018-2097 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES April 8, 2020 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of non-obviousness of OB formulation patent reversed and remanded … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

IPR claim construction of “effective amount” based on prosecution history and obviousness conclusions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in Board’s denial to amend after modifying institution decision

Genentech, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO) Docket No. 2019-1263, -1265, -1267, -1270 IPRs 2017-00731, -01121, -02063, -00737, -01122, -01960 LOURIE, MOORE, WALLACH March 26, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: Board’s claim construction (e.g., “effective amount”), obviousness conclusion and denial of amendment … Continue reading

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

FB improperly joined to its existing IPRs under 315(c); various obviousness conclusions affirmed and vacated

Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC Docket No. 2018-1400-3, -1537, -1540-41 (IPR2016-00=1156-59, IPR2017-00659, -00709 PROST, PLAGER, O’MALLEY March 18, 2020 Brief Summary: Board improperly joined FB as a party to its own existing IPRs under section 315(c); various obviousness … Continue reading

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