Category Archives: Reexamination

DC claim construction reversed; joined party in IPR can raise new obviousness arguments; no improper broadening during reissue

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al. Docket No. 2018-2338-39, -2395-96 PROST, NEWMAN, BRYSON September 24, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction affirmed and reversed (“ordinary meaning”); joinder rule did not prevent HP from raising new obviousness arguments that … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on November 11, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency.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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1984 LOURIE, CLEVENGER, REYNA June 12, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision following inter partes reexamination affirming the examiner’s rejection of Mobileye’s claim for estimating a time-of-contact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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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