Category Archives: Reexamination

Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic et al.

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.

Docket No. 2017-1008 DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 30, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board’s decision of one anticipation and two obviousness rejections affirmed; another obviousness rejection reversed and remanded as being based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.

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

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company

Docket Nos. 2017-1032 DYK, REYNA, WALLACH January 5, 2018 Brief summary: PTAB decision following inter partes reexamination affirming rejection of Monsanto’s US 7,790,953 directed to methods for producing soybean seeds as anticipated (inherency) or obvious affirmed. Summary: Monsanto appealed PTAB … Continue reading

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

In Re: Smith International, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2303 LOURIE, REYNA, HUGHES September 26, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming examiner’s rejection based on broad reading of the claim term “body” reversed since adopting “the broadest possible interpretation of a claim term, irrespective of repeated and … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC et al.

Docket No. 2016-2287 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES September 8, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB obviousness conclusion affirmed (30% reduction limitation is “an observed result on an old process”). Summary: Southwire appealed PTAB inter partes reexamination decision that claims 1-42 of US 7,557,301 … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (“Kraft”) v. Kellogg North America Co. et al.

2016-2082, -2084 PROST, REYNA (D), TARANTO September 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ for obviousness and no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: Kraft appealed grant of SJ to Kellogg of invalidity for obviousness of the asserted claims of Kraft’s … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2283 (95/001,861) and 2016-2288 (95/001,637) LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN August 30, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision partly vacated and remanded due to conflict between opinions for patents encompassing similar technologies. Summary: Vicor and SynQor appealed Board decisions after reexamination … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

In re: David Walter

Docket No. 2016-2256 MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY August 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision on indefiniteness of the term “block-like” affirmed because, e.g., it “is a term of degree, without objective criteria in the patent’s intrinsic record for establishing the … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Reexamination | Leave a comment