Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB

There is little debate that inter partes reviews have proven to be an effective means of challenging the validity of a patent. During the first two-and-a-half years, more than 73 percent of claims originally challenged in IPR...more

G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Over seven years ago, the Federal Circuit delivered a mixed ruling against Pfizer in litigation against Teva) relating to the pain medication Celebrex® (celocoxib) (where "celocoxib" is...more

Objective Basis for Inherency Argument Must Be Contained in IPR Petition

A common strategic question in inter partes review proceedings is whether you should proceed on an anticipation ground, arguing that a specific limitation is inherently disclosed, or convert the ground into an obviousness...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law: Spring 2015 - Vol. 13, Issue 2

In This Issue: - After B&B Hardware, What is the Full Scope of Estoppel Arising From a PTAB Decision in District Court Litigation? - When You Don’t Know What You Know: The Role of Unappreciated Inherency in the...more

Motivation to Combine Reviewable for Clear Error - Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Reviewing the district court’s framing of the obviousness inquiry and determination of no motivation to combine for clear error, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination...more

When You Don’t Know What You Know: The Role of Unappreciated Inherency in the Obviousness Analysis

The patent statute makes it clear that subject matter that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of a patent application is not patentable.[1] The considerations relevant...more

Post-Trial JMOL And New Trial Motions Are Granted In Part

Robinson, J. Defendant’s JMOL and new trial motions regarding the ‘081 and ‘686 patents is denied. Its JMOL and new trial motion relating to the second trial is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s JMOL motion as...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2015

Overly Narrow Statement Of Problem Can Show Reliance On Hindsight - In INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1065, the Federal Circuit held that enunciating an overly narrow statement of the problem...more

Boston Scientific Files IPR Petitions Against Nevro

Boston Scientific filed two petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 14, 2015 requesting inter partes review of Nevro’s U.S. Patent No. 8,359,102. The petitions were assigned Case Nos. IPR2015-01203 and...more

Nearly Expired Is Not the Same as Expired: The Board Clarifies Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review - Apple, Inc....

Addressing the standard to be applied for claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to create an...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Munchkin, Inc. and Toys “R” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, LTD.

Decision Date: April 21, 2014 and April 14, 2015 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D617,465 - Holding: Claimed design is obvious and therefore...more

Anticipation Found Even Where the Prior Art Did Not Disclose Limitations Arranged the Same Way as in the Claim - Kennametal, Inc....

Applying the substantial evidence standard to support an invalidity determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision with...more

A Combination Is Not Obvious If It Is Beyond the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Other Lessons - MobileMedia Ideas LLC v....

Addressing issues of obviousness and claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided several important lessons in significantly modifying the district court judgment. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v....more

Cooling Off Defendant’s Obviousness Case

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order Entering Judgment for Plaintiff, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST (Judge Jon S. Tigar) - Questions of obviousness can present some of the most...more

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6936 (FSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26207 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015) (Hochberg, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Atelvia® (risedronate /...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

First IPR Design Patent Decision Affirmed by Federal Circuit

In the first inter partes review of a design patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision that the only claim was unpatentable. Design patent D617,465 on a drinking cup was the...more

InSite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Federal Circuit showed once again the importance of a district court's factual findings (and the deference the appellate court gives those findings, particularly when supported by expert testimony), in InSite Vision Inc....more

Toward a Bullet-Proof Petition – Motivation to Combine

While 8 out of 10 Petitions seeking inter partes review are granted by the PTAB, there remain several key errors that unsuccessful Petitioners make. Among them is the failure to provide sufficient factual basis for a...more

Prior Art Must Criticize or Otherwise Disparage the Claimed Solution to Constitute a Teaching Away - PNY Techs., Inc., v. Phison...

Addressing the question of whether claims covering a particular type of USB plug would have been obvious, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found the claims to be unpatentable, concluding that while one...more

Antedating by Third-Party Reduction to Practice Not Enough—Conception Needed - Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

In its decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a design patent related to a slow cooker buffet server, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruled that the...more

Once Invalid, Always Invalid: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Application of Issue Preclusion - Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s...

Clarifying the application of issue preclusion in the context of patent invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that its prior judgment of obviousness applies to all subsequent parties, even if...more

Newco Tank – Cautionary Note on Over-reliance on Headings by Patent Drafters

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an appeal from a Re-examination Board which had considered Canadian Patent 2,421,384 and had determined that claims 12-14 were cancelled because they were obvious in light...more

Recent IPR Guidance From a Trio of Forums

As inter partes review (IPR) practice continues to develop and practitioners feel their way around the edges, the last month brought helpful guidance from a trio of forums: the Federal Circuit, the Central District of...more

Teaching Away Arguments Fail to Gain Traction with PTAB

A favored, but largely unsuccessful, line of defense for Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the argument that the prior art references-at-issue teach away from their combination. A typical form of this...more

168 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7

"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*

*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.
×