Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (No. 2015-1649, -1650, -1651, -1652, -1653, 9/9/16) (Newman, Mayer, Chen)
September 9, 2016 11:10 AM
Per Curiam. Affirming Board decision in an IPR that some claims, related to computerized research, are unpatentable and reversing the Board decision as to other claims and finding those other claims unpatentable. Chen, J. dissented-in-part.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development (No. 2015-1957, 9/8/16) (Newman, Lourie, Chen)
September 8, 2016 3:19 PM
Newman, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement. “The question is whether the monoclonal antibody of [the asserted claim] includes chimeric or humanized antibodies, when the patent specification describes only murine (mouse) monoclonal antibodies.” During prosecution, the examiner rejected claims that would have covered humanized antibodies and the patentee acquiesced in that rejection. That file history prohibited construing the asserted claim to cover humanized antibodies.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S (No. 2015-1597, 9/8/16) (Prost, Linn, Taranto)
September 8, 2016 1:40 PM
Prost, J. Reversing dismissal of declaratory judgment action and remanding. Patentee did not specifically accuse products made by the plaintiff, but the totality of the circumstances nonetheless provided subject matter jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment action. “The question of jurisdiction does not turn on [patentee's] knowledge of the specific [] products or whether [patentee] specifically alleged that the [particular] products infringed the asserted patents; instead, the question is whether under all the circumstances, [patentee's] actions 'can be reasonably inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent.”
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
