News & Analysis as of

Evidence Patents

Cover All Your Bases in ITC Discovery

by Jones Day on

Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (May 31, 2017), is a good lesson in covering all your bases. Relying on a non-infringement decision by ALJ Pender, respondents assumed that they did...more

CAFC: What a Person of Skill in the Art “Could” Do is Insufficient Evidence to Support Obviousness Finding

Duke University owns US 7,056,712 (‘712), which claims methods of treating a metabolic disorder known as Pompe disease. In particular, ‘712 claims methods of treating Pompe disease using a recombinant human acid...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Patentee’s Unnecessarily Broad Prosecution Disclaimer Affirmed by Federal Circuit - In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311, the Federal...more

Finding of Anticipation Must Be Fully Supported by Evidence of Record

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the evidentiary standard for proving anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in two separate cases, finding that the PTAB’s conclusion of...more

Opinions of Counsel Should Be Rendered Timely, and Evidence of Opinions of Counsel Should Be Credible

Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”) sued CalAmp Corp. (“CalAmp”) for patent infringement in the Middle District of Florida. The jury returned a verdict for Omega, finding all of the asserted claims valid and infringed. On April 5,...more

Just Because the Board Didn’t Say It, Doesn’t Mean that the Board Didn’t Think It

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2016-1352] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283, and Novartis’ proposed substitute...more

ITC Sanctions for “Staggering” Destruction of Evidence Upheld

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the imposition of sanctions for spoliation in a US International Trade Commission (ITC) case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the ITC’s imposition of default judgment sanctions and an...more

Burden Shifted to Accused Infringer to Show Accused Product Not Made by Patented Process

A judge has ordered that an alleged infringer’s product must be presumed to have been made using a patented process, thereby shifting the burden of proof on the issue of infringement from the patent holder to the alleged...more

Obviousness Does Not Speak for Itself

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of evidence required for a sustainable obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness of the challenged...more

Complaints About Claim Construction Irrelevant Without a Showing of How it Would Make a Difference

In Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Company LP, [2015-1992] (March 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed a $7.5 million dollar award for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,170,008, 7,012,916 and 8,204,046...more

Reg. 5.23 - When evidence isn’t considered to be evidence, but is still considered as evidence

by FPA Patent Attorneys on

Reg. 5.23 can be used to file evidence outside of the appropriate evidentiary period, even when a request for an extension of time is denied. ...more

Secondary Considerations Unsuccessful Once Again

by Jones Day on

As reported in our February 1, 2017 post, patent owners have had a difficult time convincing the PTAB that secondary considerations are sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. The Crown Packaging decision,...more

PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

by Jones Day on

On February 3, 2017, the PTAB denied a petition by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) to institute an inter partes review of Hospira Inc.’s patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions of the sedative dexmedetomidine...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR Must Explain Its Basis for a Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1670, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s obviousness finding in an IPR,...more

Not Every Party Will Have Article III Standing In An Appeal From A PTAB Final Written Decision

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,856 (“the ‘856 patent”) are nonobvious in a final written decision. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., IPR 2014-00676 (PTAB Oct....more

PTAB Convinced by Secondary Considerations to Find Claims Non-Obvious in IPR

by Knobbe Martens on

On January 19, 2017, the Board issued a final written decision in World Bottling Cap, LLC v Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (IPR2015-01651) finding the challenged claims were not unpatentably obvious over the references...more

Rx IP Update - December 2016

by Smart & Biggar on

Janssen seeks leave to appeal to SCC regarding FCA decision upholding Minister of Health’s decisions relating to administrative drug submissions - As reported previously, on October 12, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal...more

“A Finding of Induced Infringement Requires Actual Inducement”

In Power Integrations, Inc., v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., [2015-1329, 2015-1388] (December 12, 2016), a complicated action where each party claimed the other directly and indirectly infringed its patents,...more

If the PTAB Doesn’t Say Why the Invention is Obvious, the Federal Circuit Has Nothing to Affirm

In re Nuvasive, Inc., [2015-1670] (December 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB Decision finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit found that Nuvasive...more

Diligence Required for Antedating Prior Art Is Reasonably Continuous Diligence—Not Continuous Exercise of Reasonable Diligence

In Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., No. 15-2043 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit found the diligence standard the PTAB applied in an IPR “too exacting,” vacating the Board’s decision...more

Swearing Behind A Reference With Reasonably Continuous Diligence

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, finding that the PTAB imposed too...more

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Evidentiary Challenge in IPR, Reversing PTAB

More often than not, evidentiary issues in IPR proceedings fail to make headlines because the Board will structure its Final Written Decision to avoid evidentiary challenges. Findings that a party’s motion to exclude is...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

by Knobbe Martens on

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

by Knobbe Martens on

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

116 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

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