Category Archives: Uncategorized

Board IPR claim construction “in the context of this patent” and anticipation/obviousness determinations affirmed

CCS Technology, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. Docket No. 2018-1733, -1734 (IPR2016-01647, -01648) TARANTO, MAYER, CHEN July 19, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board’s IPR claim construction (broadest reasonable construction) and findings of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness affirmed. Summary: CCS appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board IPR obviousness finding affirmed, TQ Delta had “opportunity to be heard”

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC Docket No. 2018-1799 (IPR2016-01470) NEWMAN, LINN, WALLACH July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD finding TQ Delta’s communications systems claims obvious affirmed. Summary: TQ Delta appealed Board IPR Final Written Decision (FWD) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms DC’s grant of SJ, finding Enzo’s claims invalid for lack of enablement

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. (Becton Dickinson (BD), GeneOhm, Aboott) Docket Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546 (public opinion: July 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ for invalidity of Enzo’s claims for lack … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board IPR decision invalidating design patents for obviousness

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1259-60 (IPR2016-00816, -00826) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN July 2, 2019 Brief summary:  Board IPR decision of invalidity of Kolcraft’s design patents affirmed as evidence regarding inventor’s date of conception was uncorroborated. … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Design Patents, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit invalidates reissue patent invalid for lack of written description (WD)

Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC et al. (FC Docket No. 2018-1765; June 17, 2019) ~ Forum filed DJ action, DC granted SJ to Forum for lack of WD, FV appealed ~ U.S. 8,215,213 relates “to supporting assemblies” (“arbors”) … Continue reading

Posted in Reissue, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

USPTO IPR claim construction and obviousness determinations for network communications claims affirmed

Bradium Technologies LLC v. Andre Iancu (USPTO (Intervenor) Docket No. 2017-257, -2580 (IPR2016-00448, -00449) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN May 13, 2019 Brief summary: Board claim construction and obviousness determinations affirmed (e.g., no “clear and unambiguous definition limiting the term to only … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fed. Cir. affirms PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness

BTG Int. Ltd. and Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. Docket Nos. 2019-1147, -1148. -1323, -1324, -1325 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN May 14, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 … Continue reading

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