Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Administrative Agency

Read Civil Procedure updates, alerts, news, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

PTAB Applies Collateral Estoppel to Exclude Purported Patent Owner

The PTAB issued an order applying collateral estoppel to determine that one purported owner of U.S. Patent 7,215,752 and U.S. Patent 7,844,041 (the “challenged patents”) had no authority to act as the patent owner in...more

ITC Proceedings Do Not Trigger One Year Clock to File IPR

Increasing use of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) by patent stakeholders and an increase in the number of ITC complaints heighten the importance of an interplay between IPRs and ITC proceedings. We have previously noted that the...more

Troll Gets Rolled Because Its Disclaimer Statements Were Undersold

In MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a conclusion of anticipation and obviousness from an Inter Partes Review involving US 8,488,173 (‘173). The content of the art was not really in dispute. Rather, the...more

Rx IP Update - March 2017

Tribunal dismisses Eli Lilly’s NAFTA challenge on promise utility doctrine - As previously reported, Eli Lilly submitted claims to international arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) seeking...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB – No 102 Gap Filling

In a precedential opinion dated March 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that in finding a claim anticipated under 35 USC § 102, the Board cannot “fill in missing limitations” simply because a skilled...more

Federal Circuit Limits Scope of Covered Business Method Review

The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association. In clarifying what...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Anticipation Holding As Improperly Finding One Would “At Once Envisage” Missing Limitation

The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir....more

In an IPR, the Burden of Persuasion in an Obviousness Challenge Never Shifts to Patentee

On March 3, 2017, in a final written decision in IPR2015-01838, the PTAB rejected an obviousness challenge brought by DuPont against a patent owned by Furanix Technologies B. V. directed to methods for preparing the known...more

Complainant Cannot Move For Summary Determination Against Its Own Interests

Judge Pender issued Order No. 19 in Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016, denying Complainant The Chamberlain Group’s (“CGI”) motion for summary determination that the accused products...more

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2017

“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Claim Construction and Obviousness Conclusion in Eli Lilly’s IPR against LA BioMed

The Federal Circuit held that a rat study in a provisional application and a conversion method in an uncited reference did not support the claimed human dosage form in Los Angeles Biomed. Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,...more

Federal Circuit Holds That the PTAB May Consider Legal Conclusions of Obviousness by Expert Witnesses That Are Supported by...

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may consider legal conclusions of obviousness by experts, but the expert papers must make adequate factual findings and provide a satisfactory explanation as to determinations of...more

What Petitioners and Patent Owners Need to Know About the Scope of IPR Estoppel

Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently identified a logical fallacy in the “statutory estoppel” jurisprudence with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). According to the...more

Patent Claims, Not Embodiments Disclosed in Specification or Litigation Strategy, Determine Eligibility for Covered Business...

A divided Federal Circuit panel recently vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final decision ruling that challenged patent claims were unpatentable, by holding that the patent was not eligible for review under the...more

PTAB Finds Patent Eligibility in a CBM Proceeding, With a Dissent Challenging the Federal Circuit

In a final written decision, the PTAB found all challenged claims patent-eligible in Tradestation Group, Inc. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00161, Paper 129 (P.TA.B. Feb. 17, 2017), an uncommon result in a CBM...more

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands to PTAB Because of Insufficient Analysis of Obviousness in IPR

In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more

Understanding the similarities and differences between priority claims in Canada and the U.S.

A valid priority claim can allow a patent application to benefit from the filing date of an earlier patent application so as to exclude certain prior art from consideration. The recent decision of the U.S. Federal Circuit in...more

Highest Patent Court Narrows Scope of Covered Business Review

A patent does not qualify for “covered business method” review if its claims are only incidental to a financial activity. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided that a claimed method (in...more

USPTO Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review Proceedings

Confirming long-standing U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) practice, the Supreme Court in the Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee decision (Cuozzo), affirmed the USPTO’s broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the...more

USPTO Standards of Review for Inter Partes Review Proceedings

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is using the APA to check the PTAB’s tendency to invalidate claims....more

3D Cinema Systems: ITC Declines to Apply Issue Preclusion Based on PTAB’s IPR Decision

In 3D Cinema Systems (Inv. 939), the Commission issued an opinion that explained why it did not give deference to a decision of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR)....more

USPTO Errs in Failing to Carry Burden to Support Rejection

Failure of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to respond to patentee arguments in more than a conclusory manner constitutes reversible error. Where one party has the burden to establish a particular fact, the Federal...more

Federal Circuit Knocks Out Patents After CBM Challenge

Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems...more

Best in Law: How You Can Combat Chinese Counterfeits

Counterfeit products can create significant problems for businesses. Chinese counterfeiting costs foreign businesses billions of dollars a year in lost profits, according to an ABC News report last year. Counterfeiting...more

650 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 26
Cybersecurity

Follow Civil Procedure Updates on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×