REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Knox et al 10662009 - (D) WINSOR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LEE, WILSON
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Ernst et al 10687451 - (D) VANOPHEM 112(2)/103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Briggs et al 11438420 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Manelli Selter PLLC BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Haller et al 13305624 - (D) HILL 103 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC OLSON, LARS A
3676 Ex Parte Duphorne 12802675 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting GREENBERG TRAURIG (HOU) 3676
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bowman et al 11840292 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
cf. Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (if the patentee, “who was responsible for drafting and prosecuting the patent, intended something different, it could have prevented this result through clearer drafting.”).
1734 Ex Parte Otsu et al 12443310 - (D) TORCZON 112(2)/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte MacAuley et al 11997187 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global MONFELDT, SARAH M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Fabian 11558183 - (D) VANOPHEM 103 Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP CHU, KING M
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, AND NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, AND GALDERMA LABORATORIES INC., AND GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2012-1523, -1524, -1555, -1556, -1557 5,789,395 08/697,815 5,919,775 09/061,286 PER CURIAM 102 infringement LeClairRyan; Paul Hastings LLP; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik original Hoffmann & Baron LLP; Wiley Rein, LLP WEBER, JON P
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2629 APPLE INC., Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Intervenor. 2012-1338 7,663,607 10/840,862 7,812,828 11/677,958 MOORE concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part REYNA 103 102 claim construction Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP; United States International Trade Commission; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP NGUYEN, KIMNHUNG T; SHARIFI-TAFRESHI, KOOSHA
We are troubled by the ITC’s obviousness analysis. We have repeatedly held that evidence relating to all four Graham factors—including objective evidence of secondary considerations—must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(collecting cases). Indeed, it is axiomatic that “[t]he establishment of a prima facie case . . . is not a conclusion on the ultimate issue of obviousness.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1348.
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1510 5,712,327 07/899,217 MOORE JMOL non-infringement Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.; Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP original FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) LILLING, HERBERT J
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1510 5,712,327 07/899,217 MOORE JMOL non-infringement Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.; Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP original FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) LILLING, HERBERT J
