News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Appeals

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more

Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness of Novartis’s Patent for Multiple Sclerosis Drug

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to Novartis’s multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya were obvious in Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Ltd., No. 2016-1352 (Fed. Cir....more

Just Because the Board Didn’t Say It, Doesn’t Mean that the Board Didn’t Think It

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2016-1352] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283, and Novartis’ proposed substitute...more

When is a Missing Feature Not There?

TDY industries received a patent (US 7,244,519) for a cutting tool with a binder comprising ruthenium and a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating. TDY then sued Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co. for infringement of the ‘519 patent...more

Novartis v. Noven: The PTAB is not Bound by Prior Decisions of District Courts

Novartis, together with LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme, owns a pair of patents covering rivastigmine transdermal patches. These patches are useful for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Noven Pharmaceuticals filed an abbreviated new...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2017

Federal Circuit Remands IPR Final Decision For Inadequate Obviousness Analysis, Sidesteps Issue of Proper Claim Construction Standard - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1174, the Federal...more

Factual Findings Required to Show “Apparent Reason to Combine”

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness and anticipation in the context of an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions with respect to the same patent, vacating and remanding the...more

Obviousness Does Not Speak for Itself

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of evidence required for a sustainable obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness of the challenged...more

Troll Gets Rolled Because Its Disclaimer Statements Were Undersold

In MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a conclusion of anticipation and obviousness from an Inter Partes Review involving US 8,488,173 (‘173). The content of the art was not really in dispute. Rather, the...more

Celltrion Files Response Brief in Infliximab Appeal

by Goodwin on

As we previously reported, in Janssen v. Celltrion, Janssen appealed the district court’s partial final judgment that Janssen’s ‘471 patent, relating to monoclonal antibodies including infliximab, is invalid. As we also...more

Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more

Prior Art Preference for an Alternative is Not Enough to Teach Away

In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., [2016-1755] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 on a system whereby a user can identify a supplier of...more

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

by Jones Day on

In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2017

“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Claim Construction and Obviousness Conclusion in Eli Lilly’s IPR against LA BioMed

The Federal Circuit held that a rat study in a provisional application and a conversion method in an uncited reference did not support the claimed human dosage form in Los Angeles Biomed. Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,...more

Federal Circuit Holds That the PTAB May Consider Legal Conclusions of Obviousness by Expert Witnesses That Are Supported by...

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may consider legal conclusions of obviousness by experts, but the expert papers must make adequate factual findings and provide a satisfactory explanation as to determinations of...more

Secondary Considerations Unsuccessful Once Again

by Jones Day on

As reported in our February 1, 2017 post, patent owners have had a difficult time convincing the PTAB that secondary considerations are sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. The Crown Packaging decision,...more

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands to PTAB Because of Insufficient Analysis of Obviousness in IPR

by Jones Day on

In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more

USPTO Standards of Review for Inter Partes Review Proceedings

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is using the APA to check the PTAB’s tendency to invalidate claims....more

USPTO Errs in Failing to Carry Burden to Support Rejection

Failure of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to respond to patentee arguments in more than a conclusory manner constitutes reversible error. Where one party has the burden to establish a particular fact, the Federal...more

Rx IP Update - February 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

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...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

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

122 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!