Evidence Patents

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more

Software Patent Eligibility: Preemption Gets Starring Role at the Federal Circuit

The Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) pronounced, in no uncertain terms, preemption “drives” patent subject matter eligibility and its exceptions. But after Alice, it appeared preemption’s...more

It was Error Not to Consider Secondary Considerations, But They Wouldn’t Have Made a Difference

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., [2015-1853] (September 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision affirming an Examiner’s rejection of claims to a call-screening system that verbally announces a caller’s...more

Substantial Evidence Supported Infringement of Limitations That Did Not Need Construction

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on plasticized soft tissue grafts suitable for...more

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Denial of Motion to Amend Claims in IPR Proceeding

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016). On recurring controversy in AIA trials is the difficulty patent owners face meeting the PTAB’s strict requirements for amending...more

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and...

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

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

The Supreme Court to Tackle Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patents

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 14-1538, to resolve: “[w]hether a supplier can be held liable for providing ‘all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented...more

PTAB Institution Rate Continues To Lag Behind 2014 Rate, Highlighting Need For Expert Reports to Adequately Support Petition

Data released by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the Fiscal Year 2016 reveals that the PTAB is granting petitions to review at a rate similar to FY 2015, and significantly below the higher rate in FY 2014....more

Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) that the claims of Genzyme's U.S Patent Nos. 7,351,410 and 7,655,226 were obvious, in Genzyme Therapeutic...more

Claim Terms with No Specialized Meaning in the Art Always Linked to Specification

Emphasizing the public-notice function of a patent’s specification, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s construction of four patent claim terms based entirely on intrinsic evidence....more

Prior Art References Introduced After IPR Institution Are Permissible to Show State of Art

Addressing issues related to introducing additional prior art references after institution of an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or...more

Perspectives On The PTAB - Inaugural Issue

We are pleased to share this Perspectives on the PTAB newsletter. Its content is directed toward providing information and analysis of the decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We hope that this newsletter...more

PTAB Grants Late Motion to Amend, But Amended Claims Fail to Breathe Life into Patent

Addressing the standards for a motion to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted a motion to amend the claims in an IPR, but ultimately denied...more

Narrow Construction May Apply When No Evidence Supports Broader Construction

Addressing claim construction issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction limiting “communications path” to wired communications. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless...more

Federal Circuit Rules That PTAB May Base AIA Trial Decision on Facts Outside Petition for Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a decision by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating two patents after an inter partes review proceeding, even though the decision...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. Depomed, reviewing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on three related inter partes reviews. While not quite a...more

Federal Circuit Reverses the PTAB’s Reliance on Evidence Presented Solely During Oral Argument and Its Claim Construction

On March 15, 2016, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the PTAB's cancellation of claims 3 and 20 of Patent No. 6,948,021 directed to hot-swappable components in computer systems. See Dell Inc., v. Acceleron, LLC, No....more

No Mention Of Damages Is Permitted During Liability Phase Of Trial

Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al., C.A. No. 14-1317 – SLR (Consolidated), March 2, 2016 - Robinson, J. Order resolving pre-trial evidentiary issues. Plaintiffs seek to preclude defendants from relying on two...more

Federal Circuit Backs Finding of Inequitable Conduct in Reexamination of Prosthetics Patent

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court’s awarding of attorneys’ fees to Alps South (Alps) based on inequitable conduct by Ohio Willow Wood (OWW) during reexamination of its patent for gel-coated, cushioned socks...more

Board Offers New Technique to Solve an Often-Raised IPR Issue

One panel of the PTAB has introduced a technique that may help solve the oft-raised complaint that a reply brief from Petitioner contains new evidence and/or argument not raised in the Petition. In early decisions, when this...more

CLIENT ALERT: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments to Take Effect December 1, 2015

On December 1, 2015, amendments to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55 and 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will become effective. These amendments were originally approved by the Judicial Conference in...more

Phigenix v Genentech; Claims Found Not Unpatentable In Final Written Decision

On October 27, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in an IPR challenging claims 1-8 of US Patent 8,337,856, directed to immunoconjugates comprising an anti-ErbB antibody, such as the humanized anti-ErbB2 antibody known...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Relax the Standard for Award of Enhanced Patent Damages

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it will decide two cases concerning the issue of when district courts may award enhanced damages to patentees upon a finding of infringement. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, U.S., No....more

District Court Declines to Admit Denial of Petition for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") into Evidence before Jury

In a pending patent infringement action, Apple moved to preclude the plaintiff, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundations ("WARF") from offering evidence or argument regarding the Patent Office's denial of an IPR that Apple...more

94 Results
View per page
Page: of 4
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.