Category Archives: Prosecution History Estoppel

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

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC / Arista Networks, Inc. v. ITC

Docket Nos. 2016-2563, -2539 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH September 27, 2017 Brief summary: ITC decision that Arista’s importation of switches lacking software infringed (induced and contributory) Cisco’s patents affirmed. Summary: This decision relates to the ITC’s § 337 investigation based on … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1599 MOORE, LINN, STOLL May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ on non-infringement to Apple affirmed since “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be relied on to support a finding of … Continue reading

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

TMC Fuel Injection System, LLC v. Ford Motor Company

Docket No. 2016-2122 PROST, WALLACH, STOLL March 27, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of noninfringement of US 7,318,414 relating to fuel injection systems to Ford on the basis of prosecution history disclaimer (PHD) affirmed (“even if there … Continue reading

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

In Re: Lawrence B. Lockwood

Docket No. 2016-1371 PROST, MOORE, CHEN February 13, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board claim construction and finding of anticipation affirmed. Summary: Lockwood appealed Board affirmance following ex parte reexamination requested by an anonymous third party of the examiner’s determination that … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Prosecution History Estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1028 LOURIE, MAYER, O’MALLEY November 17, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC claim construction regarding the claimed capsule size and decision to transfer affirmed. Summary: Roxane appealed from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement of its US 8,563,032 relating to … Continue reading

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

Profoot, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1216 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 26, 2016 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC construction and judgment based on claim construction affirmed basred in part on prosecution history of parental patent. Summary: ProFoot appealed DC stipulated judgment of noninfringement following claim … Continue reading

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