News & Analysis as of

Evidence Patents

Instructional Materials Not Always Sufficient to Show Induced Infringement

by Jones Day on

In a recent Initial Determination, Administrative Law Judge Shaw concluded that the Complainant’s reliance on marketing and instructional materials was not sufficient to prove inducement of infringement of a claimed method....more

PTAB Disqualifies Reference for Failure to Show Public Accessibility

by Jones Day on

The PTAB’s recent final written decision denying a finding of unpatentability in ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, Case IPR2016-00927, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2017) highlights the importance of obtaining affidavit evidence to...more

Objective Indicia Were Properly Considered and Did Not Save Cookie Package Patent from Summary Judgment of Obviousness

In Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg North American Co., [2015-2082, 2015-2084] (September 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Kraft’s U.S. Patent No. 6,918,532 was invalid for obviousness,...more

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

Today the Circuit agreed to hear en banc Nantkwest v. Matal,in which the panel had reversed a district court decision that had rejected the PTO’s position that applicants who appeal a district court must pay the PTO’s legal...more

Can Unexpected Results Make the Obvious Non-Obvious?

In Honeywell, Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., [16-1996] (August 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the USTPO’s reexamination decision invalidating claims 1–26, 31–37, 46–49, 58, 59, 61–68, 70–75, 80, and 81 of...more

PTAB Can Rely on New Evidence Introduced by Petitioner in its Reply

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In a decision last month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave petitioners in AIA proceedings yet another weapon to invalidate patents – by affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that relied,...more

Federal Circuit Finds That Fetal Diagnosis Claims Survive Written Description Attacks

by Knobbe Martens on

Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2015-2011. Decided June 27, 2017. In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Federal Circuit held that claims...more

Why The Federal Circuit Revisited Written Description

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Fed Cir. No 2015-2011, June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded interference decisions on the ground the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)...more

Written Description Must Support Claims; Not Exclude Alternatives

In The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2015-2011] (June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s determination in an interference that Stanford’s...more

PTAB Grants-in-Part Rare Motion to Amend Based on Unexpected Results

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB granted-in-part a patent owner’s motion to substitute claims based on evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Technologies, AG & CO. KG, IPR2016-00502, Paper...more

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

In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more

Evidence of Unexpected Results Key to Grant of Substitute Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceeding

In Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Tech. AG & CO. KG, after finding that all original claims of the patent were unpatentable during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted,...more

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

122 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.