Category Archives: Prosecution History Estoppel

Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation, et al.

Docket No. 2018-1076 LOURIE, LINN, TARANTO February 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC judgment that Intel did not infringe CC’s asserted patents vacated and remanded due to DC’s erroneous claim construction (e.g., no clear disavowel of claim scope). Summary: CC appealed … Continue reading

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

Invidior Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. et al.

Docket Nos. 2018-2167, -21696 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL Nov. 20, 2018 (Non-precedential) Brief summary: DC order granting Invidior’s preliminary injunction reversed and remanded (“‘305 patent expressly disclaimed, through remarks in the specification, solely using conventional top air drying” and “claim … Continue reading

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

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2513 O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, STOLL September 6, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding that TWi’s ANDA to Supernus’s Oxtellar XR® would infringe the asserted OB-listed patents and that the claims are not invalid affirmed. Summary: TWi appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1314 NEWMAN, CELVENGER, CHEN August 1, 2018 Brief summary: DC’s dismissal of Advantek’s design patent infringement complaint reversed since, e.g., “a design patent may be for a component of a product” (“damages based on the value of the … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Design Patents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Blackbird Tech LLC et al. v. ELB Electronics, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1703 PROST, MOORE, REYNA (D) July 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision of non-infringement based on its claim construction vacated and remanded because, e.g., the FC panel disagreed that the “fastener limitation should be imported into the claim”. … Continue reading

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

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 DYK, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 3, 2018 Brief summary: DC claim constructions affirmed (e.g., no prosecution history estoppel) but damages determination based on the “entire market value rule” vacated and remanded since, e.g., PI “did not meet … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties | Leave a comment

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. (USPTO, Intervenor)

Docket No. 2015-1944-46 (IPR2013-00601) DYK, BRYSON, REYNA (D) April 20, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB rejection of Wi-Fi’s time-bar argument (§ 315(b)) that no DC “defendant was either a privy of Broadcom or a real party in interest”, and that the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. (CL) v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-1869 NEWMAN, MAYER, STOLL April 26, 2018 Brief summary: DC order denying CL’s motion for a new trial regarding the alleged infringement of US 6,928,479 relating to “private communicaton portal[s]” by Citrix’s GoToMyPC product affirmed. Summary: CL appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Sumimoto Dainippon Pharma Co./Sunovion Pharm. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals et al.

Docket No. 2017-1798-800 MOORE, MAYER, STOLL April 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC determination that Sumimoto’s US 5,532,372 relating to Sunovion’s schizophrenia and bipolar depression drug LATUDA® (lurasidone) is not limited to racemic mixture affirmed. Summary: Emcure appealed DC determination that … Continue reading

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

Richard J. Baker v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (Nintendo of America, Inc.)

Docket No. 2017-2357 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 9, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of SJ of noninfringement to MSFT et al. based on its construction of the claim term “remote” based in part on prosecution history estoppel affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment