Source: http://ipr-pgr.com/federal-circuit-decisions/
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 16:38:02
Document Index: 119948910

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 314', '§ 315', '§314', '§ 314', '§ 141', 'art.\n116', '§ 314', '§315']

Federal Circuit Decisions | Welcome to IPR-PGR.com
1) In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies – Affirming the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation claim construction standard.
16) Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. EMC Corporation – Rule 36 Judgment
17) Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
18) Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions- Rule 36 Judgment
19) Sony Corporation of America v. Network-1 Security Solutions – Rule 36 Judgment
20) Hewlett Packard Co. v. Network-1 Security Solutions – Rule 36 Judgment
21) ConvaTec Technologies Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.- Rule 36 Judgment
22) In re: Schott Gemtron Corporation – Rule 36 Judgment
23) Schott Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holding Company, Inc.- Rule 36 Judgment
24) Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fules, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
25) Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V. – Rule 36 Judgment
26) In re: Rotatable Technologies, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
27) Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. – Federal Circuit Decision affirming denial of petition
28) Achates Reference Publishing v. Apple Inc. – Federal Circuit Decision that it is prohibited, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), from reviewing the Board’s determination to initiate IPR proceedings based on the Board’s assessment of the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
29) Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC – Federal Circuit affirms Board’s finding that four claims were determined to be patentable and reverses Board’s determination that two claims were not shown to be patentable. Court focuses on the fact that the invention was a simple device and the references themselves provide a rationale to combine. Further, Patent Owner not procedurally harmed by virtue of the fact that Petition contained no expert testimony, but reply testimony was provided.
30) AIP Acquisition LLC v. Level 3 Communications, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
31) In re: Encap, LLC – Rule 36 Judgement
32) Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc. – Vacating and remanding decision upholding the validity of challenged patent claims because the Board’s opinion was ambiguous as to whether or not it had appropriately considered a prior art brochure.
33) Click-to-Call Tech., LP v. Oracle Corp., – Dismissing appeal in view of Achates Reference v. Apple (non-precedential).
34) Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O. – Reversing Board’s cancellation of challenged claims on claim construction analysis, including that claims had a plain meaning that should not have been altered by resort to the specification
35) MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. – Federal Circuit confirms the constitutionality of IPR process and that IPR does not violate the right to a jury trial provided by the 7th Amendment
36) Prolitec, Inc. v. ScentAir Techs., Inc. – Court affirms Board decision that claims were unpatentable (affirming claim construction and anticipation findings) and that motion to amend fell short (affirming Board’s approach relative to the scope of “prior art of record” that must be distinguished). Judge Newman files broad-based and strong dissenting opinion.
37) Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., (Gnosis I) – upholding unpatentability determination. Notable for Judge Newman’s dissent regarding the appropriate standard of review.
38) S. Ala. Medical Science Found. v. Gnosis S.p.A. (Gnosis II) – upholding unpatentability determination. Notable for Judge Newman’s dissent regarding the appropriate standard of review.
39) Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
40) Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
41) TruePosition Inc. v. Polaris Wireless, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
42) Yissum Research Dev. Co. v. Sony Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
43) Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc. – Petitioner cannot add information required to sustain its burden in an IPR (such as an expert declaration) as supplementary evidence after the decision to institute
44) In re Clouding Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
45) Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP – Neither the AIA, nor the Constitution, precludes the same 3-judge panel from the PTAB that made the decision to institute from rendering the Final Written Decision.
46) Pentair Water Pool and Spa v. Hayward Indus., Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
47) Pentair Water Pool and Spa v. Hayward Indus., Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
48) Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. – Affirming obviousness determination from PTAB in DNA sequencing patent.
49) Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc. – PTAB decision of obviousness vacated and remanded because PTAB decision did not adequately explain its reasoning for determining that the claims were obvious.
50) Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. v. Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
51) Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics – holding that the PTAB need not address all claims challenged in a Petition when rendering its Final Written Decision; only those claims included in the trial need be addressed
52) Nike v. Adidas – Remand to PTAB to consider motion to amend in view of defective PTAB obviousness analysis.
53) In re Gevo, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
54) Phison Elec. Corp v. Silicon Motion Tech. – Rule 36 Judgment
55) Lely Patent N.V. v. Delaval Int’l AB – Rule 36 Judgment
56) Interface, Inc. v. Tandus Centiva, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
57) IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
58) Board of Trustees v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
59) TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels – Affirmance of PTAB’s claim construction that led to the patentability of the claims, with particular focus on failed argument by Petitioner regarding prosecution history disclaimer
60) PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm. – Reversal where Board’s claim construction comprised the broadest of several dictionary definitions without regard to the context provided by the claims, specification and patented technology; broadest reasonable interpretation is not the one that covers the most embodiments, but is the most reasonable in light of the claims and specification
61) Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech. – Court reiterated that it does not have jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s institution decisions
62) PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Comm. – providing guidance on objective indications of non-obviousness; where undisputed evidence is presented that commercially-successful product is covered by the patents, it is error to not give weight to that evidence without further explanation (also noting that this presumption will only apply in inter partes context, where petitioner has the means to refute Patent Owner’s evidence)
63) Int’l Controls v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
64) Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC – reversing the Board’s decision that a challenged claim was unpatentable because the determination that such claim was unpatentable was based on a new argument, first presented by Petitioner at the oral argument; Patent Owner was, as a result, denied its procedural right to have notice and the ability to respond to a ground of cancellation
65) Shaw Industries Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc. – finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the propriety of the Board’s practice of denying grounds as redundant and confirms its lack of subject matter to review the Board’s interpretation of the 315(b) time bar; concurring opinion by Judge Reyna criticizing Board for its use of redundancy
66) Grandeye Ltd. v. Google, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
67) EveryMD LLC v. Facebook, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
68) Int’l Securities Exch. v. Chicago Board Options Exch. – Rule 36 Judgment
69) Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Dopomed, Inc. – affirming PTAB written decisions that held that petitioner had failed to establish a reason to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
70) In re: Hagenbuch
71) Fellowes, Inc. v. Acco Brands Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
72) Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc. – reversing the PTAB’s decision relative to one canceled claim, finding that the “Board’s sole basis for its claim construction does not reasonably support a departure from what the claim language and specification so clearly mean.” Affirming Board’s decision that the other challenged claims in two IPR proceedings was supported by substantial evidence.
73) HP Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Invs. – affirming PTAB decision relative to the patentability of one challenged claim as not anticipated in view of Petition’s failure to identify all limitations of that claim (as confirmed by attorney admission at oral argument); also affirming the PTAB’s decision not to consider all grounds of the petition based on redundancy grounds, finding that such decision is not reviewable pursuant to 35 USC §314(d)
74) In re Rivera – Rule 36 Judgment
75) Osram GMBH v. Schubert – Rule 36 Judgment
76) Cooper v. Square, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
77) Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc.
78) Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. – CAFC affirms Board’s decision to ignore petitioner reply where that reply contained new argument in support of unpatentability
79) Norred v. Medtronic, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
80) Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo of America Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
81) Surfcast, inc. v. Microsoft Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
82) Endotach LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
83) Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co. – Rule 36 Judgment
84) Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group – Rule 36 Judgment
85) Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
86) In re: Aqua Products, Inc.
87) Clouding Corp. v. Unified Patents, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
88) Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.
89) Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
90) Medtronic, Inc. v. Lifeport Sciences LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
91) Perfect Surgical Techniques v. Olympus America, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
92) Genzyme Therapeutic Products v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical – PTAB is not constrained to consider only information cited in the institution decision; IPRs are considered trials and it is expected that additional evidence will come to light during the course of a trial
93) GrafTech Int’l Holdings v. Laird Technologies, Inc.
94) LG Electronics, Inc. v. Toshiba Samsung Storage – Rule 36 Judgment
95) SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC
96) Robert Bosch Healthcare System v. Cardiocom, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
97) Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
98) Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Medical Corp.
99) In re: Magnum Oil Tools International – Reversing PTAB, finding that the Court is not prohibited by § 314(d) from reviewing those decisions just because they were also addressed in the Decision to Institute; the Court also held that the Board’s obviousness conclusion was not based on sufficient evidence since the Board relied on Petitioner’s conclusory statements and improperly argued on behalf of Petitioner; lastly, the plain language of 35 USC § 141(c) does not require a party dissatisfied with the Board’s final written decision to first raise the issue in a rehearing request before appealing the issue to the court
100) Apotex v. Wyeth
101) Clearplay, Inc. v. Customplay, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
102) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ericsson Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
103) B.E. Tech, LLC v. Sony Mobile Comm.
104) In re Aqua Products, Inc. – Granting en banc review of motion to amend practice at the PTAB
105) RB Pharma. Ltd. v. Biodelivery Sciences – Rule 36 Judgment
106) Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.– PTAB reversed because “common sense” was improperly used to supply a missing limitation in an obviousness inquiry
107) Netapp, Inc. v. Electronics and Telecom. – Rule 36 Judgment
108) In re: Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. – With a discussion of the “substantial evidence” standard, PTAB affirmed because substantial evidence supported finding of obviousness; one claim survived, with a remand to the PTAB, for more explanation as to why the PTAB reached its conclusion
109) Enplas Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. – Rule 36 Judgment
110) In re: The Procter & Gamble Co. – Rule 36 Judgment
111) Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp. – PTAB’s denial of motion to amend claims vacated. The PTAB acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it insisted the patent owner discuss whether each newly added feature in the claims was separately known in the prior art, rather than discussing the newly added features in combination with other known features.
112) Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
113) Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
114) Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. – The Federal Circuit refuses to consider patentee’s argument that the petition was time-barred because the petitioner was in privity with a time-barred litigant. The Court found Cuozzo does not overrule the Achates ruling that the Federal Circuit cannot review whether review was improperly instituted based on a time-barred petition.
115) Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. – Per curiam; nonprecedential. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s unpatentability finding for most claims, rejecting patentee’s teaching away argument and finding lack of nexus between the claims and alleged commercial success. Reversing rejection of other claims where the PTAB’s analysis failed to show the claims’ elements were all in the prior art.
116) Mexichem Amanco Holding v. Honeywell Int’l Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
117) Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
118) Brixham Solutions, Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (IPR2014-00425) – Rule 36 Judgment
119) Brixham Solutions, Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (IPR2014-00431) – Rule 36 Judgment
120) Husky Injection Molding System v. Athena Automation Ltd. – Assignor estoppel does not apply to PTAB proceedings
121) Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare – The Court reaffirmed that the PTAB’s vacatur of its institution decisions and termination of the proceedings (due to failure to name all real parties in interest) constituted decisions whether to institute and are therefore final and nonappealable under § 314(d). The Court found Cuozzo does not require a contrary holding.
122) Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. – Rule 36 Judgment
123) CF Crespe LLC v. Silicon Laboratories, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
124) Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
125) REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj – Reversing PTAB’s decision to exclude certain evidence relating to conception and reduction to practice; not hearsay because only offered for the non-hearsay purpose of showing that the inventor thought he had achieved a quality claimed in the patent-at-issue
126) Hockeyline, Inc. v. Stats, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
127) B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google, Inc.
128) Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc.
129) Perfect Surgical Techniques v. Olympus Am., Inc.
130) Bose Corp. v. SDI Tech., Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
131) Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield v. Churchill Drilling Tools US
132) In re: Nuvasive, Inc.
133) CF Crespe LLC v. Silicon Laboratories, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
134) Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel Link Corp – Rule 36 Judgment
135) CSP Tech, Inc. v. Clariant Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
136) In re: Nuvasive, Inc.
137) Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC
138) Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc.
139) Micrgrafx, LLC v. Google Inc.
140) D’Agostino v. Mastercard Int’l – PTAB reversed for adopting unreasonable claim construction
141) CTP Innovations, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co. – Rule 36 Judgment
142) Lear Corp. v. NHK Seating of Am., Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
143) Wildcat Licensing WI, LLC v. Adient PLC – Rule 36 Judgment
144) In re Celgard, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
145) UUSI, LLC v. Webasto Roof Systems, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
146) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Compass Bank – Rule 36 Judgment
147) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
148) VernetX v. Apple Inc.
149) VernetX v. Apple Inc.
150) Wi-Fi one, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. – Ordering rehearing en banc of Achates decision regarding whether judicial review is available for issues raised in Decisions to Institute
151) Zond LLC v. Gillette Co – Rule 36 Judgment
152) Zond LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
153) Zond LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
154) Utility Associates, Inc. v. Digital Ally, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
155) Leak Sruveys, Inc. v. Flir Systems, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
156) Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.
157) In re: Depomed, Inc.
158) Secure Axcess, LLC v. EMC Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
159) Slot Speaker Technologies v. Apple, Inc.
160) Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
161) MPHJ Technology Investments v. Ricoh Americas Corp.
162) Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc.
163) LMK Technologies, LLC v. BLD Services, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
164) GreatBatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
165) Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor.
166) Tietex Int’l Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
167) Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
168) Power Survey, LLC v. L-3 Comm. Holdings – Rule 36 Judgment
169) Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.
170) Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.
171) Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.
172) Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical
173) Los Angeles Biomedical v. Eli Lilly and Co.
174) Google v. SimpleAir, Inc. – claim construction argument on appeal deemed waived because the argument was not first made to the PTAB
175) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
176) Enova Tech. Corp. v. Seagate Tech. – Rule 36 Judgment
177) Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
178) Affinitiy Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – Rule 36 Judgment
179) Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm.
180) Zagg Intellectual Property v. Tech 21 UK Ltd. – Rule 36 Judgment
181) Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Sys. – Affirming in part and reversing in part in view of detailed analysis of claim constructions
182) Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. – PTAB is not bound by district court conclusions, citing to new evidence in IPR and lower burden of proof in IPRs
183) Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. – reversing PTAB’s claim construction, and remanding for reconsideration of obviousness in view of the new construction. Also, reversing obviousness determination of another claim because evidence and argument spoke in terms of what a person of skill in the art “could” do rather than what that person “would” do.
184) Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global*Tel Link Corporation – Mere potential violation of a regulation, without factual or legal argument as to why that violation denied a party notice or an opportunity to be heard in the IPR, is insufficient to warrant reversal. Also, denying appeal of denied motion to amend in view of Patent Owner’s admission that the amendments were not made in response to a ground of unpatentability raised in the IPRs.
185) Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc.
186) Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.
187) Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company
188) Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company – Rule 36 Judgment
189) IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation
190) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc.
191) Intermetro Industries Corp v. Enovate Medical, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
192) IpVenture, Inc. v. FedEx Corporation – Rule 36 Judgment
193) Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
194) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc.
195) EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp.
196) In Re: Nuvasive, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment]
197) Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America, Inc. – En Banc Order
198) Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl Gmbh & Co. KG
199) Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
200) Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation
201) Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
202) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
203) In Re: Nuvasive, Inc.
204) Cole Kepro International, LLC v. VSR Industries, Inc.
205) Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment]
206) Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
207) Outdry Technologies v. Geox S.P.A. – setting forth criteria for determining whether or not the explanations provided by the PTAB in an IPR decision are sufficient to support a finding of motivation to combine.
208) Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group Of America – reversing and remanding a PTAB decision that the challenged claims are unpatentable, holding that “catch-all” phrases in a Petition for IPR and/or a Board’s Institution Decision are insufficient to put a patent owner on notice of the specific grounds alleged for unpatentability. Also, reaffirming the need for corroboration when relying on testimony of an alleged inventor.
209) Home Semiconductor Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – Rule 36 Judgment
210) PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
211) Richmond v. Coleman Cable, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
212) HTC Corporation v. Cellular Communications Equip. – Rule 36 Judgment
213) Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L.
214) Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. Alliance Of Rare-Earth Permanent Magnet Industry
215) Shinn Fu Company of America v. Tire Hanger Corporation
216) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
217) Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC
218) Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation
219) HTC Corporation v. Cellular Communications
220) Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.
221) Spherix Incorporated v. Matal
222) Home Semiconductor Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
223) Lunareye, Inc. v. Matal – Rule 36 Judgment
224) C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Arris Group, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
225) Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation
226) Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation
227) Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC – Federal Circuit vacated PTAB decision to cancel challenged and remanded, finding that the Board abused its discretion by refusing to entertain a motion to supplement to include expert testimony that Patent Owner contended was contradictory to evidence adduced in the IPR.
228) Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. – affirming PTAB determination of obviousness; but, in a concurring opinion, drawing into question the PTAB’s practice of 1) construing 35 U.S.C. §315(c) to encompass both party joinder and issue joinder and 2) using expanded panels to decide requests for rehearing.
229) Gold Standard Instruments, LLC v. US Endodontics, LLC
230) NFC Technology, LLC v. Matal
231) NFC Technology, LLC v. Matal – Rule 36 Judgment
232) Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v. SFC Co. Ltd.
233) Cablz, Inc. v. Chums, Inc.
234) Smartdoor Holdings, Inc. v. Edmit Industries, Inc.
235) Brunswick Corporation v. Cobalt Boats, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
236) Christy, Inc. v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
237) Christy, Inc. v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.
238) Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology (US)
239) B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.
240) Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal – En Banc Opinion – reversing the PTAB’s amendment procedure, holding that: (1) the PTO has not adopted a rule placing the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner that is entitled to deference; and (2) in the absence of anything that might be entitled deference, the PTO may not place that burden on the patentee.
241) Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Matal
242) Worldwide Oilfield Machine v. Ameriforge Group. – Rule 36 Judgment
243) Uniloc USA v. Sega of Am. – affirming PTAB decision relating to the priority date of a means-plus-function claim limitation. Foreign application to which the patent claimed priority did not provide adequate written description support for the patent’s claims.
244) Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am.
245) Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. Corelogic, Inc. – affirming PTAB’s decision to cancel all challenged claims of two related patents. The decision explains how the PTAB’s obviousness determination was supported by substantial evidence and Appellant’s arguments were unpersuasive.
246) SNF Holding Co. v. BASF Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
247) Ignite USA, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLC
248) Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co.
249) Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp.
250) Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.
251) Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC
252) Cequent Performance Products v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
253) In re: NPS Pharma., Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
254) Netlist, Inc. v. Sandisk LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
256) Smart Modular Tech. v. Netlist, Inc. – Rule 36 Judgment
257) Security People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC – Rule 36 Judgment
258) Yongjiang Yin and Shenzhen EL v. Sure-Fire Electrical Corp. – Rule 36 Judgment
259) Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. – Rule 36 Judgment
260) CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal
261) Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing – affirming the Board’s claim construction of “request,” but vacating in part a finding of no anticipation (because the Board did not consider both methods disclosed in the relevant prior art) and vacating a finding of non-obviousness (because the Board provided insufficient explanation to justify rejecting the challenge). Starting at page 15, the Fed. Cir. provides a detailed discussion of what must be shown, pursuant to KSR, to establish obviousness.
262) AIP Acquisition LLC v. Cisco Sys, Inc. – affirming Board’s claim construction of “internet protocol” and “Internet protocol” (capitalized), holding the terms had different meanings and not narrowly construed as “internet protocol of TCP/IP” because, among other reasons, while the specification discussed TCP/IP specifically, the claims did not.