Posts Tagged: Chief Judge Sharon Prost


CAFC Affirms PTAB Win for Patent Owner in Nonprecedential Decision, Chief Prost Dissents

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential opinion in Amazon.com, Inc. v. ZitoVault, LLC, affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
10 days ago 1

Federal Circuit affirms PTAB Mixed Decision in Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard

Acceleration Bay appealed the final written decisions of the Board holding claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634, claims 1-11 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344, …

Federal Circuit says Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings

The Federal Circuit recently found that assignor estoppel has “no place in IPR proceedings,” affirming a holding of the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“Board”) that assignor …

Blockbuster Restasis Patent Goes Down at Federal Circuit a Victim of Rule 36

Without any explanation, analysis or justification, Chief Judge Prost, and Judges Reyna and Hughes affirmed the decision of colleague Judge Bryson. A patent to a blockbuster drug …

CAFC Vacates PTAB Obviousness Decision, Nonobviousness Nexus Established by Patent Owner

The Federal Circuit recently issued a non-precedential decision in LiquidPower Specialty Products v. Baker Hughes, vacating and remanding a final written decision from the Patent Trial and …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
2 months ago 7

Rule 36 Affirmances at the Federal Circuit – Week of October 8, 2018

During the week of October 8, 2018,  there were five cases involving patents that were decided without an opinion as a result of Rule 36 affirmances at the United States …
By Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn
2 months ago 11

Federal Circuit Decision Erases $234 million Damages Awarded to WARF

The Federal Circuit recently issued a ruling reversing the district court’s denial of Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) …

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Invalidation of Claims Federal Circuit Previously Upheld as Valid

Previously, the ITC instituted an investigation of Instradentdental implants based on a complaint filed by Nobel alleging violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by reason of importation of …

Federal Circuit Affirms Board: No Interference-in-Fact for CRISPR-Cas9 Technology

The Federal Circuit recently weighed in on an interference proceeding between the University of California (“UC”) and the Broad Institute over the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology. The …

Intellectual Ventures v. T-Mobile: Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Vacated Due to Incorrect Claim Construction

In claim construction analyses, the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term will not be narrowed by statements in the prosecution history, unless those statements clearly …

CAFC vacates Summary Judgment entered against Intellectual Ventures

On Tuesday, September 4th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et. al., …
By Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn
3 months ago 0

The Federal Circuit’s Hidden Agenda

One might naturally expect that, if a rejection under § 101 appealed from the PTAB failed to address all the claim limitations and had zero supporting evidence to determine …

IPR Time-Bar Applies Even If Patent Infringement Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

In Click-To-Call Technologies v. Ingenio, Inc., Yellowpages.com, LLC, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held §315(b) precludes IPR institution when the IPR petitioner was served with …

Federal Circuit Dismisses PTAB Appeal Because Appellant Fails to Prove Injury-In-Fact for Standing

On Friday, August 3rd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive, which dismissed an appeal stemming …
By Steve Brachmann
4 months ago 1

LED Patent Invalid for Lack of Enabling Disclosure for All Claimed Permutations

Trustees of Boston University (“BU”) sued Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., and others (collectively, “Everlight”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (the “738 Patent”). The Federal Circuit reversed …

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close