Category Archives: Reexamination

Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art analysis (“reasonably pertinent”)

Posted on November 11, 2019 by

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation Docket Nos. 2019-1803 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 8, 2019 Brief Summary: Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art determination (i.e., “whether the reference…is reasonably pertinent”). Summary: Airbus appealed Board reversal … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB obviousness decision vacated as being improperly based on inherency

Posted on October 16, 2019 by

Knauf Insulation, Inc. et al. v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency. Summary: Knauf appealed PTAB’s inter partes … Continue reading →

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

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Allergan, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Posted on July 23, 2018 by

Docket No. 2018-1638 through -1643 (multiple IPRs) DYK (C), MOORE, REYNA July 20, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision that Allergan’s assignment of its patents to Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe did not allow the Tribe to terminate IPR proceedings based on … Continue reading →

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

Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. v. iOnRoad, Ltd.

Posted on June 20, 2018 by

Docket No. 2017-1984 LOURIE, CLEVENGER, REYNA June 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision following inter partes reexamination affirming the examiner’s rejection of Mobileye’s claim for estimating a time-of-contact between a moving vehicle and an obstacle” as obvious affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

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

Posted on April 30, 2018 by

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

Knowles Electronics LLC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Posted on April 9, 2018 by

Docket No. 2016-1954 NEWMAN (D), CLEVENGER, WALLACH April 6, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction and affirmance of examiner’s obviousness rejections following reexamination requested by Analog Devices affirmed. FN2 explains that the PTO had the right to intervene after Analog … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

In re: Power Integrations, Inc.

Posted on March 22, 2018 by

Docket No. 2017-1304 MOORE, MAYER, STOLL March 19, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB claim construction and resultant anticipation decisions regarding PI’s ‘876 patent reversed (“[t]he board has had two opportunities to come up with a sustainable interpretation that differs from the … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic et al.

Posted on March 2, 2018 by

Docket No. 2016-2010 NEWMAN (D), WALLACH, CHEN March 1, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming rejection of Knowles’s claims as anticipated or lacking written description (proposed amended claims) affirmed. Summary: Knowles appealed PTAB decision following inter partes reexamination affirming the … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Smith & Nephew, Inc., Covidien LP v. Hologic, Inc.

Posted on January 31, 2018 by

Docket No. 2017-1008 DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 30, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s decision of one anticipation and two obviousness rejections affirmed; another obviousness rejection reversed and remanded as being based on non-analogous art. Summary: S&N appealed Board decision affirming … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

In Re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., New York Univ.

Posted on January 24, 2018 by

Docket No. 2017-1257 PROST, REYNA, WALLACH January 23, 2018 Brief summary: The FC panel affirmed the Board obviousness-type double patenting decision since “a patent owner can[not] retroactively bring the challenged patent within the scope of the § 121 safe harbor … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting, Reexamination, Reissue | Leave a comment