INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED -
Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Indefinite claims do not preclude patentability analysis at the PTAB....more
12/30/2021
/ Claim Construction ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED -
Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A “generic” motivation to combine that has broad appeal or applicability is not...more
12/30/2021
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Expert Testimony ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Qualcomm
SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.
Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Central District of California.
Summary: Summary judgment of obviousness is improper for a design patent if there is a genuine...more
IN RE: IPR LICENSING, INC., -
Before O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Establishing a motivation to combine two references for an obviousness determination in an IPR...more
11/27/2019
/ Admissible Evidence ,
Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inadmissible Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Partial Reversal ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand
BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC V. ANDREI IANCU -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A clear and unambiguous definition of a claim term is required to redefine the term to...more
NOVARTIS PHAMACEUTICALS CORP V. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS -
Before Stoll, Plager, and Clevenger. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: When a method of using a prior art...more
AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board.
Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Summary: Nothing in § 41.41(b)(2) bars a reply brief from addressing new arguments raised in the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A petitioner in an Inter Partes Review may introduce new evidence not included in its petition if: 1)...more