Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

Physical Combinability of References Not Necessarily Required for Obviousness

Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the obviousness determination of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), explaining that it is not necessary for two...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

Federal Circuit Review | July 2016

Obvious Combinations Do Not Need to Be Physically Combinable - In Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1533, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity finding...more

Federal Circuit Explains Burden Shifting in IPRs

In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) (Newman, O’MALLEY, Chen) (PTAB) (4 of 5 stars) The highly truncated nature of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings has led to concerns...more

PTAB Institution Decision Does Not Shift Burden from the Patent Challenger to the Patentee

The Federal Circuit previously clarified that a petitioner’s burden to prove unpatentability never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc. On July 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit’s In re...more

PTO Cannot Raise & Decide Unpatentability Theories Never Presented by the Petitioner

In In re Magnum Tools International, Ltd., [2015-1300] (July 25, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 were invalid for obviousness. The Federal...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc. (PTAB 2016) - Business Method Patent Not Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101

HP Inc. and SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method (CBM) patent review of claims 15 and 20–34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 owned by Big Baboon, Inc. The PTAB, however, determined that the...more

Packing Your Patent Application for Europe: Avoiding Problems Under European Patent Law

Planning an extended European vacation for your patent application? A lengthy stay in Munich with possible outings to The Hague, Berlin, Vienna, or Brussels? While your patent application won’t be strolling through the...more

ANDA Update - Volume 2, Number 2

180-Day Notice Period for Biosimilar Approval Is Always Mandatory and Enforceable by Injunction - Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) - A year after analyzing the patent dance and notice...more

Federal Circuit Offers Path Through Section 101 Thicket for Biotech Method Patents

In its July 5, 2016 decision in Rapid Litigation Management Ltd and In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corp., the Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to an improved method of cryopreserving...more

The Start of Something Big? PTAB Issues First PGR Final Decisions

Post Grant Review (“PGR”) is a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) proceeding established under 35 U.S.C. § 321 that permits the PTAB to review the patentability of claims in a patent based on any grounds under 35 U.S.C. §...more

No Approval for Generic Product for Treatment of Rosacea **WEB ONLY**

Addressing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and obviousness issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling barring approval of a generic version of Finacea® gel...more

Federal Circuit Distinguishes “Motivation to Combine” from “Expectation of Success” for Obviousness Purposes

Addressing issues of obviousness and the proper scope of inter partes review (IPR) reply briefs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) IPR decision finding the...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2016

The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...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

A Combination of References Can be Obvious Even if it Requires a Bit of Work

In Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, [2015-1533] (June 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-001006 that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489, were obvious. Allied first...more

Board Not Limited to Prior Art in the Grounds, as Long as Patent Owner Had Notice

In Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., [2015-1720, 2015-1721](June 14, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR2013-00534 and IPR2013-00537 that certain claims of ...more

The Introduction of New Evidence Is Permitted During IPR Proceedings

On June 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that the introduction of new evidence is not only permitted, but “is to be expected,” in inter partes review proceedings. As long as the opposing party is...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Decision Invalidating Genzyme Patents

On June 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a final decision in Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. v. Biomarin Pharms., No. 2015-1720 case affirming two PTAB IPR final decisions invalidating as obvious the claims of U.S. Patent Nos....more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - May 2016

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions (No. 2015-1425, 1438, 5/31/16) (Prost, Reyna, Stark) - May 31, 2016 3:11 PM - Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents based on...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2016

Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more

PTAB Reversed for Failing to Explain “Why” a Person of Skill Would Modify the Prior Art

It is no secret that patent owners have, on average, struggled at the PTAB over the last three and a half years. Some practitioners say that a reason for this result is that the Board many times takes an aggressive approach...more

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Have you ever mixed up the obviousness determinations of "motivation to combine" and "reasonable expectation of success"? If so, you are apparently not alone -- the Federal Circuit recently faulted the Patent Trial and...more

PTAB Institutes IPR on Humira Patent

As we previously reported, the PTAB instituted IPR on U.S. Patent 8,889,135, which is drawn to a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) with Humira®, a TNFa-inhibitor. Claim 1 is directed to “A method for treating...more

323 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 13
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.
×