PGS Geophysical AS v. IANCU (No. 2016-2470, -2472, -2474, 6/7/18) (Wallach, Taranto, Stoll)
Taranto, J. After Board ruled partly for Petitioner and partly for Patent Owner in IPRs, the case settled and only PTO pursued the appeal of the claims found obvious. Notwithstanding SAS, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, did not need to sua sponte revive non-instituted grounds and otherwise affirmed the Board’s obviousness determination.
In Re Durance (No. 2017-1486, 6/1/18) (Lourie, Reyna, Chen)
Reyna, J. Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s determination of obviousness. The Court held that the PTAB erred in not considering arguments in the patent applicants’ reply brief that were properly made in response to the examiner’s answer.
Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc. (No. 2017-1267, 6/1/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Hughes)
Hughes, J. Vacating and remanding the district court’s judgment that asserted claims were invalid as indefinite because the claims recited means-plus-function terms for which the specifications did not disclose sufficient structure. The Court held that the district court did not properly support its conclusion that the asserted claims recited means-plus-function terms.