On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Volvo Penta of the Ams. LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Case No. 22-1765, vacated a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
11/13/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Denial of Institution ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
7/7/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Expert Testimony ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 103
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more
10/11/2019
/ Appeals ,
B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence
In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught...more
In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant...more
6/29/2017
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice Requirements ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Reversal
On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more
On December 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that patent claims related to methods of treating elevated homocysteine levels...more