Category Archives: Preamble

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | Leave a comment

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2265, -2380 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY September 28, 2018 Brief summary: DC holding that Apple infringed WARF’s patent reversed. DC grant of SJ of no anticipation affirmed. Summary: Apple appealed DC holding that it infringed WARF’s US 5,781,752 (expired … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble, Software | Leave a comment

Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland L.P.

Docket No. 2016-2297 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH August 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction (preamble is not a limitation), willfulness, and enhanced damages ($1m) conclusions affirmed. Summary: Holland appealed the DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction, willfulness, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A.

Docket No. 2016-1769 (IPR2914-01244) DYK, MOORE, REYNA June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Board obviousness decision based on reasoning adopted from Geox’s arguments affirmed. The FC panel also explained that “[t]he Board was not required to limit its motivation to combine … Continue reading

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

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.

PGR2015-00011 (US 8,859,623 B1) Post-Grant Review Decision November 14, 2016 Brief Summary: Preamble found not to limit the claim; petition for PGR found not to show unpatentability of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: The grounds for … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Post-grant review, Preamble | Leave a comment

Coherus Biosciences Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd.

IPR2016-00172 U.S. Pat. No. 8,889,135B2 May 17, 2016 Decision instituting IPR Update: See summary of May 16, 2017 FWD finding claims 1-5 unpatenable. See also July 6, 2017 FWD in IPR2016-00408 and IPR2016-00409 (both requested by Boehringer Ingelheim) finding claims … Continue reading

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

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

Docket No. 2015-1364 (IPR2013-00342) MOORE, O’MALLEY, WALLACH February 22, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB “broadest reasonable construction” of claim term found not to be “reasonable” in view of the specification. Summary: PPC Broadband appealed from PTAB IPR decision that claims 1-10 … Continue reading

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