Advanced Media Networks, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2018-1014 (September 17, 2018) (Nonprecedential) Patent No. 5,960,074

Key point(s):

• A brief mention of the term “ethernet packet switching protocol” in the specification was not sufficient to redefine that term from its ordinary meaning to a POSITA.

E.I. Dupont De Nemours v. Synvina C.V., No. 2017-1977 (September 17, 2018) (precedential, 3-0) Patent No. 8,865,921

Key point(s):

• The burden on the applicant of production of evidence to rebut a presumption of obviousness based on the prior art disclosing overlapping ranges as those claimed applies in the IPR context.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. 2017-2059 (September 19, 2018) (Nonprecedential) Patent No. 8,225,408

Key point(s):

• The Federal Circuit reviews the underlying fact-finding of the Board for obviousness in an IPR for substantial evidence. In particular, the Federal Circuit reviews whether the Board’s reading of the art is supported by relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support.

South-Tek Systems, LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, No. 2017-2297 (September 20, 2018) (Nonprecedential) Patent No. 9,144,700

Key point(s):

• Arguments not raised in the IPR petition are waived and cannot be raised after the fact.
• The Board cannot institute on less than all of the grounds of a petition.