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
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part
Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more
9/28/2019
/ § 42.301(b) ,
Appeals ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Innovative Technology ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Question of Law ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 101 ,
Section 103
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 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 O’Malley, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: While obviousness of apparatus claims “capable of” a particular function may be shown by...more
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 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
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 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