Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

Assignor Estoppel and Motion to Amend Claims Both Tough Sells in Inter Partes Review

Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. - Addressing a patent owner’s request to dismiss an inter partes review (IPR) based on assignor estoppel and motion to amend the claims, the U. S. Patent...more

Patent Owner Bears Burden of Proving Proposed Claims Patentable

Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc. - Addressing the patent owner’s burden of showing non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, or...more

AbbVie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Last month, in AbbVie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination by the District Court for the Southern District of New York that U.S. Patent No....more

Selection Invention Found Unpatentable For Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

On August 21, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in AbbVie Inc. v. The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust., holding that the claims to a selection invention were invalid based on...more

Humira Patent Invalid for Obviousness Type Double Patenting

In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that a second patent covering AbbVie’s Humira product is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type...more

The Board and Secondary Considerations

Commercial Success - In Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc., IPR2014-00245, Paper 19 (August 22, 2014) the Board explained; Commercial success typically is shown with evidence of “significant...more

Judge Crotty denies attorney and expert fees

In a matter related to Case no. 1:13–cv-01358–PAC, Abbvie requested attorney and expert fees following the court’s determination that U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (“Methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis with an anti-TNF-alpha...more

A second patent in a chain falls to obviousness-type double patenting challenge

The court had previously determined that The Kennedy Trust’s U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the “parent patent”) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) to U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (“the grandparent“). At issue...more

Dissent at the PTAB Leads to … Unpatentability

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConvaTec Technologies, Inc. - In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that 13 claims of the patent-at-issue were anticipated or obvious and rejected the...more

PTAB Discovery of Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness: How to Get Necessary Prior Authorization

Discovery limitations play an important role in the differences between district court patent litigation and actions at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). So far, the PTAB has placed significant restrictions on...more

Examiner and Board Must Be Consistent in Prior Art-Based Rejections of Similarly-Worded Claims

Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee - Addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) erred by rejecting some claims as obvious, but not...more

A Compound Is Obvious Where Only Minor Changes to a Prior Art “Lead Compound” Are Required to Make the Claimed Compound

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...more

Obviousness Only Requires Reasonable Expectation of Success of One Compound Encompassed by Broad Genus Claims

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the issue of showing a reasonable expectation of success when making obviousness combinations in the context of broad genus claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC (D.N.J.)

The defendants include generic ANDA applicants (the “generic defendants”) and the API manufacturer, Johnson Matthey, Inc. and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials (collectively “JM”). Six summary judgment motions were...more

Public Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings – the USPTO is Listening

As mentioned in a previous article, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a series of roundtables throughout the United States this spring to solicit public feedback on AIA trials. Having received some feedback during...more

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Case Name: Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10710 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna and Chen presiding; Opinion by Prost, C.J.; Dissent-in-part by Chen,...more

Need Nexus Between the Claimed Feature and the Marketed Product to Demonstrate Commercial Success

St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich. - In the final written decision of an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) canceled all claims at issue on...more

Testimony of Expert Witness: Key Patentability Arguments in Inter Partes Review

SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Anest Iwata Corp. - In a final written decision, in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejected a patent owner’s motion to...more

Federal Circuit Looks for a Different Kind of Unexpected Results in BMS v. Teva

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more

Expert's Failure to Properly Apply Obviousness Standard Leads to Vacated Jury Verdict

InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc. - Addressing the sufficiency of expert testimony to support a jury’s finding of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district...more

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

Decision Date: April 21, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D617,465 - Holding: Claimed design is obvious and therefore UNPATENTABLE - Opinion: Petitioners Munchkin, Inc. and Toys...more

Is the PTAB a Death Sentence for Patent Rights?

In September 2012, inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) patent review procedures launched at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Proponents of these processes believed that a PTO-affiliated forum...more

Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim

On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___...more

Keeping Score at the PTAB

Motorola v. Mobile Scanning; Adidas v. Nike; Berk-Tek v. Belden; Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. - In the final written decisions of five inter partes reviews (IPRs) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more

Is Evidence of Obviousness Always Required?

In K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that upheld the decision of the Central Reexamination Unit Examiner that refused to hold...more

109 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5