Posts Tagged: Judge Ray Chen


CAFC Vacates PTAB Decision to Uphold Conversant Wireless Patent Challenged by Google, LG

On Tuesday, November 20th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Google LLC v. Conversant Wireless Licensing, which vacated a decision …
By Steve Brachmann
5 days ago 1

CAFC finds nexus between minimally invasive surgical patent and commercialized procedure

On Friday, November 9th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in NuVasive, Inc. v. Iancu, which vacated certain findings of the …
By Steve Brachmann
20 days ago 2

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 …

Time Warner Asks CAFC to Vacate $139.8M Reasonable Royalty Awarded to Sprint

John O’Quinn, partner at Kirkland & Ellis and counsel representing Time Warner at the Federal Circuit, argued that the entire verdict should be vacated, not just the …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
2 months ago 1

Entire market rule only when infringed feature constitutes sole basis for consumer demand

To base its damages theory on the entire market value rule, Power Integrations bore the burden of proving “the patented feature is the sole driver of customer …

CAFC Reverses Nonobviousness Ruling in IPR as Board Failed to Apply Burden-Shifting Standard

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) inter partes review decision on nonobviousness, holding that the Board erred when it did not …

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 Vacates PTAB Decision for Failure to Consider Ericsson Reply Brief

In its decision, the Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB is entitled to strike arguments improperly raised in a reply brief under 37 CFR § 42.23(b). However, the appellate …
By Steve Brachmann
3 months ago 0

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 …

Claim reciting results achieved by general computer technology directed to unpatentable abstract idea

In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment finding patent claims asserted by Interval Licensing LLC failed to recite patent-eligible subject matter …

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of Validity of Claims Directed to Aveed®

When relying on scientific guidelines to support an obviousness rationale, practitioners should offer evidence for why contradictory guidelines should be discounted. A claimed constituent is not “necessarily …

Entire Market Value Rule Inappropriate When Patented Feature Not Sole Driver of Customer Demand

Power Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 ("the '079 patent") and 6,538,908 ("the '908 patent"). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively "Fairchild") …

CAFC Vacates Board for Moving Target Rejections, Failure to Consider Reply Brief

The moving target rejections were largely due to the fact that the examiner's first clear explanation that she was relying on structural identity, and not inherency, appeared …

Federal Circuit Vacates, Remands After PTAB Fails to Consider Arguments in Reply Brief

On Friday, June 1st, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re: Durance striking down a decision by the Patent Trial …
By Steve Brachmann
6 months ago 6

WesternGeco’s Time-Bar Argument Fails to Save its Invalidated Patents

On appeal, WesternGeco argued 1) the Board erred as to its unpatentability determinations; and 2) the IPR proceedings were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because ION acted in …

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