Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

RxIP Update - February 2017

Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant...more

Hindsight Cannot be the Thread that Stitches the Prior Art Patches into the Claimed Invention

In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

Sportbrain Sues Smartwatch Manufacturers, PTAB institutes IPR against Patent-in-Suit

Sportbrain Holdings LLC (“Sportbrain”) is a company that was previously engaged in the business of selling fitness trackers. Sportbrain recently sued eight smartwatch manufacturers for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent...more

Just Because One Could Doesn’t Mean One Would

In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., [2016-1174] (February 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s claim construction but vacated the Board’s obviousness determination because the Board did not...more

Federal Circuit Again Reverses PTAB Obviousness Determination

In what is becoming a familiar basis for reversal of PTAB decisions, the Federal Circuit yet again reversed the PTAB for its failure to adequately explain the basis for combining multiple prior art references in support of...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2017

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

IPR Denied after Board Finds Asserted PCT Publication Not Entitled to Priority Application’s Filing Date under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §...

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR based on patent owner’s challenge to the prior art status of a PCT publication that was asserted by the petitioner as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art in Forty Seven, Inc. v....more

The Removal of Matter from the Provisional Application is Significant to the Interpretation of the Claims in the Non-Provisional...

In MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC. v. Ricoh Americas Corp., [2016-1243] (February 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173 were invalid on the grounds of...more

Federal Circuit Looks to Provisional Patent Application in Determining Claim Scope

Differences between a provisional patent application and a nonprovisional application claiming priority to the provisional application may inform claim construction, following the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in MPHJ...more

You’re So Vague: Federal Circuit Sends IPR Decision Back to PTAB for More Thorough Analysis

In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal’s Board (PTAB) is required to explicitly state motivations to combine prior-art references in claim rejections for obviousness. ...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

PTAB allows Patent Owner to File Supplement to Motion to Amend in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies LLC

On remand from the Federal Circuit the PTAB granted authorization for a patent owner to file a supplement to its Motion to Amend in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies LLC, IPR2014-00090, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B....more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Obviousness Determination Due to “Inadequate” Rationale

On February 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness determination by a panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) due to an inadequate explanation of why the challenged claims were determined to be obvious...more

All Claim Limitations Must be Shown for Derivation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) And Obviousness

Introduction - In proving a patent invalid (or infringed), all claim limitations must be considered. A recent case illustrates this maxim for both derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Court Rejects Theory Of Derivation Based On FDA Requirement

The Federal Circuit decision in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC may be more interesting for what Mylan argued than for what the Federal Circuit decided. However, it could be an important decision...more

Moving From Everyday Dosing to Less Frequent Dosing is Obvious

In a consolidated Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action, a district court judge in Delaware recently found claims directed to a treatment for multiple sclerosis invalid as obvious....more

PTAB Finds Secondary Considerations Outweigh Evidence of Obviousness

In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,550,271 (the “’271 patent”) were not unpatentable because “compelling evidence of secondary considerations of...more

Patent Claims Directed to Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis Invalid as Obvious

In a consolidated Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action, a district court judge in Delaware recently found claims directed to a treatment for multiple sclerosis invalid as obvious....more

CAFC Upholds Preliminary Injunction Despite Unpatentability Ruling of PTAB

This week in Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp. (Moore, Wallach and Stoll), the Federal Circuit upheld the grant of a preliminary injunction by the Eastern District of Texas, despite a PTAB Final Written Decision...more

RX IP Update - January 2017

Apotex’s Infringement of AstraZeneca’s Omeprazole Formulation Patent Upheld - As previously reported, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision released on January 12, 2017 (2017 FCA 9), has affirmed the...more

PTAB Provides A Possible Roadmap For Patent Owners To Successfully Argue Secondary Considerations Of Nonobvious

For just the third time ever, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) recently sided with a Patent Owner in an inter partes review (“IPR”) to find that evidence of secondary considerations of...more

Communication of an Idea that Makes the Claimed Invention Obvious is Not Enough to Show Derivation

In Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc.v. Mylan Institutioal LLC, [2016-1155, 2016-1259] (January 26, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court holding that U.S. Patent No. 8,399,445, which describes and claims...more

2017 Intellectual Property Law Year In Review

Though politics ruled the headlines in 2016, the year still brought big changes in intellectual property law and its application, most notably in patent subject matter eligibility, inter partes review institution and appeal...more

In re Schweickert (Fed. Cir. 2017)

USPTO's Conclusion of Obviousness Rendered Primary Reference Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose - In a nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the Board and remanded the case on appeal from...more

Suing The United States Government For Patent Infringement And Defending Against A Claim Of Obviousness

A patentee may bring patent infringement claims against the United States government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, in which Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims. Patent infringement...more

435 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 18
Popular Topics

"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.
×