On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness ("Guidance") in the Federal Register. The stated goal of the Guidance is...more
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on a multiple prior art references generally requires that the references teach or suggest all claim elements and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated...more
Can a prior art reference with an error be considered to be a disclosure of the erroneous teaching? A Federal Circuit panel split over this issue, with their disagreement largely based on how apparent the error would be to...more
In academic settings, objective indicia of non-obviousness are sometimes presented as a common way of rebutting contentions that a claimed invention is obvious. These indicia, set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and...more
Diamond v. Diehr, decided by the Supreme Court in 1981, seemed to establish a bedrock principle of statutory construction for patent law. The Court stated that "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even...more
The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the...more
Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more
An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? -
In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,...more
Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more
McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more
8/15/2016
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Evidence ,
Fracking ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Intervenors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
USPTO
This case is notable mainly because it is the first Federal Circuit decision to distinguish itself from Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and also because it is another reminder that the wall between patentable subject matter,...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
12/19/2014
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Obviousness ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Reform ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Software