Posts Tagged: Judge Jimmie Reyna


Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Invalidation of Wireless Network Patent in Apple Cases Involving APJ Clements

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in DSS Technology Management v. Apple, which reversed an earlier decision by the Patent Trial …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
13 days ago 3

Conclusory approach to obviousness by PTAB in IPR insufficient to render claims invalid

The Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to provide sufficient explanation for its obviousness finding, instead using a conclusory approach that asked whether the missing limitation …

Federal Circuit applies collateral estoppel where prior IPR previously construed related claim

Collateral estoppel is not limited to identical patent claims or claims within a single patent and may preclude a contradictory construction of a claim term already construed …

Federal Circuit Affirmed Obviousness of ‘435 Patent Claims

The broadest reasonable construction of “sterilant concentration levels” encompassed both the “gas laden” (or “in air”) sterilant levels and the residual sterilant levels. Nothing in the specification …

PTAB Not Required to Consider New Evidence or Arguments at Oral Argument

The Board is not compelled by Federal Circuit precedent or PTO guidelines to consider arguments and evidence presented for the first time during oral argument. However, if …

McDonald’s Payment Devices Do Not Infringe Digital Rights Management Patents

The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto noted that “the matter at hand reveals a gap in our jurisprudence on …
By Steve Brachmann
1 month ago 2

Preclusion Applies Only If Scope of Patent Claims in Both Suits are Essentially the Same

In SimpleAir v. Google, The district court found claim preclusion applied because the patents at issue had the same title and specification as previously litigated patents, SimpleAir …

Factual Allegations on Inventive Concept Preclude Dismissal of Complaint Under § 101

In Atrix Software v. Green Shades Software, Aatrix sued Green Shades for infringement, and Green Shades moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, holding: (1) claim 1 …

Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software: Pleading must be taken as true on 101 motion to dismiss

"The Aatrix ruling is significant because when deciding a motion to dismiss all factual allegations made by the plaintiff (i.e., the patent owner) in the complaint …
By Steve Brachmann
2 months ago 6

Patent Cannot Retroactively Be Filed As Divisional Application to Avoid Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

To fall within the safe-harbor protection against obviousness-type double patenting, a patent application must be properly designated as a divisional application before the patent issues. Attempts to …

Federal Circuit Reverses and Remands Board Decision Upholding Patentability

In an appeal from an IPR in which the Board upheld the patentability of several patent claims, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded to the …

Lack of Signature on Assignment Declaration Nixes Standing for Patent Co-Owners

In its decision, the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that Advanced Video did not have standing to sue for patent infringement after it was …
By Steve Brachmann
3 months ago 1

Split CAFC Panel Says ‘Will Assign’ Provision of Employment Agreement Insufficient for Standing

In 2011, Advanced Video filed suit against HTC for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, …

Court Affirms Inherent Disclosure of Monsanto Soybean Claims

The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of several claims in a patent owned by Monsanto... Extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an allegedly anticipating references and to …

En Banc Federal Circuit Reverses Achates, Time-Bar Determination is Appealable

Inter Partes Review proceedings (IPRs) are subject to statutory timing provisions. The Court, sitting en banc, reviewed whether PTAB decisions determining whether an IPR was timely filed …