Before Hughes, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Filing an amended complaint does not nullify a dismissal order that was not later...more
Before Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
5/31/2024
/ Design Patent ,
En Banc Review ,
Graham Factors ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC.
Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more
INTEL CORP. V. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG -
Before Newman, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Under the “known-techniques” rationale, a motivation to combine two prior art references...more
APPLE INC. v. VIDAL -
Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Judicial review is available to determine whether the PTO...more
ALMIRALL, LLC v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC -
Before Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges applied where a...more
VALVE CORPORATION v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: For purposes of authenticating a prior art reference in IPR proceedings, the Board...more
APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents it licenses from Qualcomm, despite...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more
12/29/2020
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
General Electric ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Raytheon ,
Remand ,
Standing ,
Vacated
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35...more
11/19/2020
/ Covered Business Method Patents ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Remand ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Vacated
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY -
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: A...more
9/25/2020
/ § 315(b) ,
§315(e) ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art
FANDUEL, INC. v. INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC -
Before Dyk, Moore, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if it institutes trial...more
ESIP SERIES 2, LLC V. PUZHEN LIFE USA, LLC -
Before Reyna, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB’s determination that an IPR petition identifies all real parties in...more
ARGENTUM PHARM. LLC v. NOVARTIS PHARM. CORP.
Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party lacks standing to appeal an adverse IPR...more
Time-bar Challenges to IPR under Section 315(b) Can Be Waived -
ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY INC. v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS INC (NOS. 2019-1059 & 2019-1060) -
ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY INC. v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS INC (NO....more