News & Analysis as of

Expert Testimony Appeals Prior Art

McDermott Will & Emery

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022: Split Panel Weighs General Skepticism Differently in Obviousness Inquiry

In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

Sunstein LLP

FanDuel Learns the Hard Way: An IPR Challenge to Any Patent Claim May be Lost if Not Comprehensive and Rigorous Enough

Sunstein LLP on

As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Unsupported Expert Testimony Isn’t Enough to Establish Motivation to Combine

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Equivalent Disclosure Used to Satisfy Written Description Requirement

McDermott Will & Emery on

Invoking a newly minted equivalent disclosure doctrine, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the written description requirement of § 112 was satisfied in the interest of arriving at a...more

Knobbe Martens

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An unsupported expert opinion does not constitute substantial evidence to contradict a prior art...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB: Summaries of Key 2017 Decisions

In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Establishing Obviousness: A Fundamental Case of Evidence Over Arguments

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more

Jones Day

Unsupported Assertions: Expert’s Persuasive Authority Suffers Without Directly Engaging Claim Limitations

Jones Day on

An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more

Knobbe Martens

The PTAB Reverses Original Decision After the Federal Circuit Reverses Key Findings and Limits Issues for Review

Knobbe Martens on

On October 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR holding all claims unpatentable after the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. The PTAB reversed their...more

Knobbe Martens

Inherent Anticipation for Biotechnology Inventions

Knobbe Martens on

Anticipation by inherent disclosure requires that a single prior art reference necessarily includes the unstated limitation. The unpredictable nature of biological processes means that winning summary judgment of invalidity...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Patent Owner Should Have Left “Good Enough” Alone - Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness and procedural issues related to the use of declarations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | December 2015

Knobbe Martens on

Expert Testimony Not Always Necessary to Establish Prima Facie Obviousness Case in Inter Partes Review - In Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, Appeal Nos. 2014-1575, 2014-1576, on appeal from an IPR, the Federal Circuit...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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