Category Archives: Prosecution History Estoppel

Board IPR claim construction and obviousness conclusions affirmed, disclaimer made during IPR not binding “in the very IPR proceeding in which it is made”

Posted on November 17, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

CUPP Computer AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2262-4 (IPR2-19-00764, -00765, -00767 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2262.OPINION.11-16-2022_2034079.pdf) DYK, TARANTO, STARK November 16, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board claim construction and obviousness findings affirmed.  FC panel explains that “a disclaimer in … Continue reading →

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

Assigned claim not broader than asserted claim, DC assignor estoppel decision affirmed

Posted on August 15, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Hologic, Inc., et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. Docket No. 2019-2054, -2081 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2054.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990706.pdf) STOLL, CLEVENGER, WALLACH August 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   On remand from SCOTUS, assignor estoppel decision affirmed as asserted claim not broader than assigned claim. Summary:  This … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, Written description | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness conclusion vacated for incorrect claim construction, grant of SJ regarding jurisdiction vacated

Posted on June 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Univ. of Massachusetts, Carmel Labs., LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1969 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1969.OPINION.6-13-2022_1964183.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO June 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC indefiniteness finding vacated due to improper claim construction and grant of SJ for … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel, Wherein, Written description | Leave a comment

Claim construction affirmed, Hulu’s SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; damages testimony exclusion affirmed

Posted on May 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC Docket No. 2021-1998 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1998.OPINION.5-11-2022_1950301.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO May 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; exclusion of certain damages testimony affirmed. Summary:  Sound … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Disclaimers, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel, Software | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Docket No. 2021-1864 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1864.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934126.pdf) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of indefiniteness reversed, but induced infringement, exclusion of expert witness report and damages findings affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Medical Devices, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties, Written description | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed as based on improper claim construction (no clear PHE)

Posted on April 20, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co. et al. Docket No. 2021-2167 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2167.OPINION.4-1-2022_1930021.pdf) NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL April 1, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of summary judgment reversed as FC panel found claim construction errors. Summary:  Genuine sued Nintendo for … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”

Posted on March 18, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. OKI Data Americas, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1189.OPINION.2-10-2021_1730931.pdf) PROST, CLEVENGER, TARANTO February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness determination affirmed due to “inconsistent prosecution history statements”. Summary:  Infinity appealed DC indefiniteness finding regarding US Pat. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ of infringement to Lilly under DOE affirmed

Posted on December 31, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eli Lilly And Company v. Apotex, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1328 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1328.OPINION.12-21-2020_1705369.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, STOLL December 21, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of infringement under DOE affirmed. Summary:  Apotex appealed DC grant of Lilly’s motion for summary judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Claim construction reversed since DC excluded preferred embodiment and “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”

Posted on April 17, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1595, -1648 WALLACH, MAYER, STOLL April 10, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: FC panel reverses DC claim construction (e.g., cannot exclude preferred embodiment, “‘equivalent’ does not require mathematical precision”). Summary: Rembrandt … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | 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

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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