SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU -
Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California -
Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of...more
8/27/2020
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Dismissals ,
Due Process ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents
MUNCHKIN, INC. V. LUV N’ CARE LTD -
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Central District of California.
Summary: when a litigant seeks fees for an exceptional case based on issues that were not fully...more
6/10/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Amended Complaints ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Exceptional Case ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Trade Dress ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Unfair Competition
CATERPILLAR PAVING PRODUCTS v. WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Remand of an IPR based on Arthrex is not justified where the final written...more
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC -
Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board...more
FOX FACTORY, INC. v. SRAM, LLC -
Before Prost, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Summary: When a commercial product contains unclaimed features, a presumption of nexus between...more
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC -
Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Summary: District courts lack the authority to...more
8/20/2019
/ Article III ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Remand ,
Standing ,
Vacated
CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER -
Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking...more
Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to demonstrate inherency. Instead,...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously leaves no room for assignor estoppel to apply in...more
11/13/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ,
Appeals ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Claim Construction ,
Cross-Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Reversal
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which prohibits the Board from instituting an IPR based on a petition filed...more
10/1/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Dismissals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more
8/29/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated ,
Voluntary Dismissals
Federal Circut Summary -
Before O’Malley, Taranto, and Stark; Partial En Banc Decision before Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A writ of mandamus cannot be used as an alternative means of obtaining appellate review of...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party did not waive SAS-based relief in an IPR appeal when it requested remand for consideration of...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Prost, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion concerning the patentability of proposed substitute...more
6/21/2018
/ Anticipation ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Substitute Claims ,
Vacated
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An unsupported expert opinion does not constitute substantial evidence to contradict a prior art...more
6/1/2018
/ Anticipatory Reference ,
Appeals ,
Expert Testimony ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vacated
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Extrinsic evidence can be used to find that an allegedly anticipating reference necessarily includes...more
The Federal Circuit upheld an IPR final written decision by the PTAB holding that MindGeek’s claims were unpatentable in Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., No. 2016-2018 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2017). ...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more
4/19/2017
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Novartis ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir....more