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
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH -
Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.
Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not...more
Before: O'Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A parent patent specification of a continuation-in-part child patent constitutes intrinsic evidence...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 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 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