Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

Recent IPR Guidance From a Trio of Forums

As inter partes review (IPR) practice continues to develop and practitioners feel their way around the edges, the last month brought helpful guidance from a trio of forums: the Federal Circuit, the Central District of...more

PTAB Excludes Documents Corroborating Publication Date as Hearsay but Admits Librarian Testimony - Toyota Motor Corporation v....

In a final written decision, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent (PTO) Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted in part the patent owner’s motion to exclude certain documents purporting to corroborate the...more

Teaching Away Arguments Fail to Gain Traction with PTAB

A favored, but largely unsuccessful, line of defense for Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the argument that the prior art references-at-issue teach away from their combination. A typical form of this...more

Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Prior Art that Mentions an Object with Standard Textbook that Describes that Object - Intel...

Addressing the merits in an inter partes review of a patent for improved computer graphics calculations, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found all challenged claims unpatentable. ...more

Petitioners Cannot Respond to Substantive Issue Raised in Preliminary Response - VTech, Inc. v. Spherix Inc.

Addressing whether a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) can respond to a patent owner’s preliminary response, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the...more

Motion to Exclude is Proper Vehicle in IPR to Remove Reference as Evidence

Patent Owners have often made the argument that certain art of record in an inter partes review is not actually prior art. The proper way to remove that evidence from the record is via a Motion to Exclude, not merely by...more

POSITA Motivated to Pursue Clinical Development of Therapy Disclosed in Prior Art Despite Potential Safety and Efficacy Hurdles

The PTAB recently held that the challenged claims in two patents assigned to Genzyme and one patent assigned to Duke University on methods for treating Pompe disease are invalid. ...more

Another IPR Petition Comes Up Short for Failing to Adequately Show Rationale to Combine

Many Patent Owners are finding success in undermining the challenge grounds of a Petition by arguing that the Petition fails to make an adequate showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the...more

Wireless Does Not Mean “Without Wires”; “Streaming Video” Does Not Mean Emailing a Video File - In re Kevin R. Imes

Reviewing a final written decision of U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding application claims unpatentable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in concluding that...more

Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

Case Name: Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Civ. No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150283 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) (Sleet, J.) (When a POSA would have to undertake significant guesswork to vary the parameters of...more

Combinations of Predictable Elements from the Prior Art Need Not Be Advantageous - Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.

Addressing the propriety of combining prior art in an obviousness analysis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) determined that a patent for a spinal implant for...more

Pharmaceutical Patent Score a Win - Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.

In three separate but related final written decisions in the first successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Proving Inherent Anticipation – Make or Break Your Case With Expert Testimony

Anticipation is a basic concept in patent law. On its face the concept is simple—if a single prior art reference teaches every element of a claim in the proper context, then the claim is not patentable, i.e., it is...more

Supplementing Information - Post-Institution Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC

Addressing a motion to submit supplemental information after institution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the motion, finding that the information—a supplemental...more

District Court Action Dismissed Without Prejudice Does Not Bar Filing of IPR Petition - Nautique Boat Co., Inc. v. Malibu Boats,...

Addressing whether a district court action dismissed without prejudice bars a filing of an inter partes review (IPR) petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal...more

PTAB Warns Patent Owner that Not Participating Will Result in Adverse Judgment - Shire Dev. LLC v. LCS Group, LLC

Faced for the first time with a patent owner unwilling to participate in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) permitted the filing of a paper...more

CBM Review Based on New Combinations of Prior Art - eBay Inc., v. Moneycat LTD.

Addressing an alleged abuse of discretion asserted by a patent owner in instituting a covered business method (CBM) patent review, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded...more

Warner Chilcott Co, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 2014-1439, 2014-1441, 2014-1444, 2014-1445, 2014-1446, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21946 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Reyna and Taranto...more

Court Rules PTAB Decision to Institute AIA Review Is Final, Cannot be Appealed

In the first-ever ruling in an appeal of an American Invents Act review decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed last week that a speed limit indicator patent is invalid. As an initial issue in the decision on...more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings Continue to Be an Efficient and Effective Way to Address Patent Infringement Allegations in Light...

A recent court decision suggests that it may be even easier to invalidate patent claims via a relatively quick proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) – known as inter partes review (“IPR”) – as...more

Five Out Of Six Disputed Claims Are Anticipated In Dispute Relating To Hybrid Memory Patents

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘719 patent is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation with respect to disputed claims of the ‘719 patent...more

Federal Circuit Sides with Patent Office in First IPR Final Written Decision Review

On February 4, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) first inter partes review (“IPR”) Final Written Decision. In fact, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. was the first appeal...more

IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Trial and Appeals Board Decision in First Appeal of Inter...

On February 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-1301, upholding a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate claims of a patent...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB in First Completed Inter Partes Review Appeal

On February 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first precedential decision reviewing a completed inter partes review (IPR) proceeding under the America Invents Act. The Court held...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Use of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims in IPR Proceedings

In affirming the decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claims in...more

236 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10