Maxell Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd.

Docket No. 2023-1194

LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM

March 6, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness decision reversed and remanded as “there is no contradiction in the claim language” (limitations to Markush group of transition elements and 30-100% per mole).

Summary:   U.S. Patent No. 9,077,035, owned by Maxell, describes a rechargeable lithium-ion battery and the claims are directed to a lithium-ion battery with a specific composition of lithium-containing transition metal oxides.  The DC found the claim language defining transition metal element M1 to be indefinite, leading to a partial final judgment in favor of Amperex.  The FC…
Continue Reading DC indefiniteness finding reversed and remanded as no contradiction in claim limitations

Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. USPTO (Intervenor)

Docket No. 2022-2276 (IPR2020-01053) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2276.OPINION.4-5-2024_2296961.pdf)

TARANTO, HUGHES, CUNNINGHAM

April 5, 2024

Brief Summary:  Sumimoto’s appeal of IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for dismissal as the disputed patent was expired as of the appeal and Sumimoto had no interest in past or future infringement.

Summary:   Sumimoto appealed IPR decision finding all 75 claims of US 5,532,372 directed to “[a] method for treating schizophrenia in a patient without a clinically significant weight gain” (“weight gain being a recognized adverse side-effect of many antipsychotic drugs”) using lurasidone.  The FC panel opinion is focused…
Continue Reading IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as patent expired and Sumimoto had no “interest in any forward-looking exclusion” or past infringement by unlicensed sales (IPR addresses “patient” vs. population but not discussed here)

AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Mach7 Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2022-2109 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2109.OPINION.4-4-2024_2296276.pdf)

MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES

April 4, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed.

Summary:   AI appealed DC grant of a motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) that the claims of its US 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397 asserted against Nuance are “directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” and therefore ineligible under section 101.  The patents related to systems for “advanced visualization of medical scans using…
Continue Reading DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed (abstract idea, no “improvement in computer technologies”)

Salix Pharm., Ltd. et al. v. Norwich Pharm. Inc.

Docket No. 2022-2153, -1952 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2153.OPINION.4-11-2024_2300049.pdf)

LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM

April 11, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC obviousness of method of treatment and polymorph patents and ANDA-related (FDA cannot approve current ANDA, correctly denied ANDA amendment) decisions affirmed. 

NOTE: Salix argued it “actually succeed[ed]” and did not expect to succeed because the beta form “remained undisclosed”, which the FC panel summarized as incorrectly suggesting “that no unknown entity could ever be obvious, as one cannot reasonably expect what was hitherto unknown”.

Summary:  Salix appealed DC judgment holding claim 2 of US 8,309,569,…
Continue Reading DC obviousness and procedural ANDA-related decisions affirmed

Luv N’ Care, Ltd., Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain, Eazy-PZ, LLC

Docket No. 2022-1905, -1970 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1905.OPINION.4-12-2024_2300689.pdf)

REYNA, HUGHES, STARK

April 12, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC grant of LNC’s unclean hands defense affirmed; DC findings of no obviousness or inequitable conduct vacated and remanded.

Summary:   EZPZ appealed DC judgment against it for “unclean hands”, which the FC panel affirmed here.  LNC appealed DC judgment for EZPZ of no inequitable conduct (IE), which the FC panel vacated and remanded here.  The FC panel also vacated the DC’s grant of partial summary judgment (SJ) of invalidity for obviousness and order…
Continue Reading LNC’s unclean hands defense affirmed; no obviousness or inequitable conduct findings vacated and remanded

Edwards Life Sciences Corp. et al. v. Meril Life Sciences PVT. LTD. et al.

Docket No. 2022-1877 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1877.OPINION.3-25-2024_2290338.pdf)

LOURIE, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM

March 25, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ to Meril based on determination of 271(e)(1) safe harbor affirmed. Summary:   Edwards appealed DC grant of summary judgment (SJ) finding “Meril’s act of importation of the two transcatheter heart valve systems fell within the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1).” Meril is an India-based company that started clinical trials for its system (“Myval”) in India in October 2018 and was approved for sale in the European…
Continue Reading DC grant of SJ based on determination of 271(e)(1) safe harbor affirmed

Virtek International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., DBA Aligned Vision

Docket No. 2022-1998, -2022 (IPR2021-00062) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1998.OPINION.3-27-2024_2292085.pdf)

MOORE, HUGHES, STARK

March 27, 2024

Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness finding reversed due to no motivation to combine; IPR non-obviousness finding affirmed as substantial evidence supported conclusion of no motivation to combine.

Summary:   Virtek appealed USPTO Board IPR holding that certain claims of Virtek’s US 10,052,734 directed to a “method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface” to be invalid for obviousness.  ­­­Aligned Vision (AV) appealed the finding it did not show certain claims to be invalid…
Continue Reading IPR obviousness finding reversed for no motivation to combine affirmed

Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologis, Inc.

Docket No. 2022-1751, -1813 (IPR2020-01556, -01557 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1751.OPINION.2-8-2024_2267070.pdf)

REYNA, HUGHES, STARK

February 8, 2024

Brief Summary:  Board IPR decisions reversed and vacated for improper determination of public availability of instruction manuals and claim construction determinations.

Summary:   Weber appealed two IPR final written decisions (FWDs) finding that Provisur’s US 10,639,812 and 10,625,436 relating to “high-speed mechanical slicers used in food-processing plants to slice and package food articles, such as meats and cheeses” were shown to be unpatentable for obviousness.  The Board first concluded that “Weber’s operating manuals were not prior art printed publications” because…
Continue Reading IPR decisions of no obviousness vacated and remanded for improper public accessibility and claim construction determinations

Google LLC, et al. v. EcoFactor, Inc.

Docket No. 2022-1750, -1767 (IPR2020-01504, -00792 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1750.OPINION.2-7-2024_2266326.pdf))

REYNA, TARANTO, STARK

February 7, 2024

Brief Summary:  Board implicitly construed claims; that construction was improper and led to a finding Google had not shown obviousness; decision vacated and remanded. Summary:   Google appealed from Board IPR final written decision (FWD) finding EcoFactor’s US 8,498,753 relating to thermostat-related systems and methods are not unpatentable.   Google’s IPR alleged obviousness in view of two US patents (Wedekind and Ehlers).  Representative claim 1 includes method steps 1a-1m, including 1m inputs [i]-[v] that are most relevant to this appeal. …
Continue Reading Board’s incorrect implicit claim construction, and finding of no obviousness, vacated and remanded