ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: During vacancies of Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,...more
APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL -
Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Notice letters and related...more
4/19/2022
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Burden of Proof ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
IP License ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Wireless Technology
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
IN RE: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY -
Before Prost, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The specific combination of purely mathematical steps in a...more
MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC.
Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The purchaser or assignee of all assets and interests of the requester of inter...more
In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC -
Before Wallach, Bryson, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: The Kessler doctrine is not limited to cases...more
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. V. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: The disclosure-dedication doctrine precludes...more
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
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC -
Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Dyk dissenting in part. Appeal from the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Alice step one is a threshold inquiry that can be resolved by analyzing the...more
ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Northern District of California.
Summary: Use of a natural phenomenon in a method of preparation claim found patent eligible...more
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Summary: Findings of fact at the PTAB must be supported by substantial evidence, and conclusory expert...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
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
Before Dyk, Linn, and Taranto.
Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Contract interpretation must be applied in determining whether a sublicense survives...more
10/18/2019
/ Ambiguous ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Contract ,
Cease and Desist ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Dismissals ,
Extrinsic Evidence ,
IP License ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Sublicenses ,
Vacated
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC.
Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall...more
10/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
Campbell Soup Company ,
Design Patent ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Section 103 ,
Vacated
GUANGDONG ALISON HI-TECH CO. V. ITC -
Before Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from United States International Trade Commission.
Summary: A term of degree is not indefinite so long as the written description provides...more
HYLETE LLC v. HYBRID ATHLETICS, LLC -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Absent exceptional circumstances, an argument raised for the first time on appeal is...more
REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF MINN. v. LSI CORPORATION -
Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: State sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings asserted against...more
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
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Diligence requires “reasonably continuous diligence” and is not negated if the inventor works on improvements and evaluates...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from District of Delaware.
Summary: A district court’s construction of a claim term that is contrary to the plain language of the claims and usage of the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Judge Newman, Lourie and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Claims reciting only conventional steps to detect a natural...more