-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Patrick J. Halloran,… on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Kevin E Noonan on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Qualities of a Good… on Edwards Life Sciences AG et al… Archives
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unjust enrichment
- Willfullness
- Written description
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Expert Testimony Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Inequitable Conduct Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Patentability Preamble Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Category Archives: Reexamination
Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. et al.
Docket No. 2016-1996 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH August 1, 2017 Brief summary: Board affirmance of obviousness rejections vacated and remanded because, e.g., it erred “in dismissing properties of the claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to unpredictability and … Continue reading
Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination
Leave a comment
Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.
Docket No. 2016-1814, -1815, -1051 PROST, BRYSON, HUGHES July 26, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision of obviousness following inter partes reexamination affirmed (e.g., “absolute predictability” not required, no teaching away). Summary: Soft Gel appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision invalidating … Continue reading
IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corporation
Docket No. 2016-1474 (PTAB No. 95/001,192) PROST, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 7, 2017 Brief summary: Board’s claim construction of means-plus-function claims (the Board did not ““look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure”) and conclusions … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Construction, Obviousness, Reexamination
Leave a comment
In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.
Docket No. 2016-1830 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 10, 2017 Brief Summary: No error found with the Board’s authority to reexamine even though LG withdrew since LG submitted the request and “was still involved in the proceedings at the time the … Continue reading
Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Reexamination
Leave a comment
Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation v. Power Integrations, Inc.
Docket No. 2017-1002 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA April 21, 2017 Motion Panel Order (Precedential) Brief Summary: PTAB “ordered to dismiss the reexamination of claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the ‘972 patent” (for which a final decision has already been … Continue reading
Posted in Collateral estoppel, Reexamination
Leave a comment
In re Apple Inc.
Docket No. 2016-1402 PROST, DYK, STOLL April 14, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board construction of “scroll and gesture” affirmed. Its construction of “rubberbanding” and the associated finding that the prior disclosed the same vacated and remanded. Summary: Apple appealed PTAB … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Construction, Reexamination
Leave a comment
Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2016-1475 NEWMAN, BRYSON, MOORE February 28, 2017 Brief Summary: Certain findings of obviousness vacated due to lack of explanation/support by the Examiner and the Board. Summary: Icon appealed Board decision following inter partes reexamination of Icon’s US 7,789,800 … Continue reading
Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination
Leave a comment
