Obviousness Appeals

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Prior Art in Obviousness Analysis

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit in Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ, Inc. clarified the standard by which a reference may be considered prior art for the purposes of an obviousness determination. See No. 2015-1155, Slip. Op....more

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...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

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

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

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

Obviousness Must Be Supported by Analysis and Factual Findings

Malico Inc. v. Cooler Master USA Inc. - Addressing the need for factual findings to support a finding of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision invalidating a...more

Design Patent Case Digest: High Point Design LLC and Meijer, Inc., Sears Holding Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Buyers Direct,...

Decision Dates: September 11, 2013 and March 26, 2014 - Courts: Federal Circuit and the Southern District of New York Patent: D598,183 - Holding: Grant of summary judgment of invalidity REVERSED and REMANDED; on...more

No En Banc Review for Use of Post Invention Information in Obviousness Analysis

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Declining to reconsider its panel decision holding that a pharmaceutical was obvious where a skilled artisan would have altered the lead prior art compound in the...more

“Soda-Pop” Bottle Caps Can Be Analogous Art for Flash Chromatography Cartridges

Scientific Plastic Products, Inc. v. Biotage AB - Addressing the issue of analogous art in the context of inter partes reexamination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S....more

The Doctrine of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Maintains Its Vitality

Abbvie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust - Addressing whether the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is still viable, and, if so, whether it served to invalidate a later-issued and expiring...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

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

Pre-AIA Statute Did Not Give Patent Owner in an Ex Parte Reexamination the Right to Bring an Action in District Court

In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien - Addressing whether a patent owner involved in a pre-America Invents Act (AIA) ex parte reexamination, could challenge an adverse reexamination decision in a district court...more

Combining Two Drugs Is Not Always Obvious

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of combining two known hypertension medications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling of...more

Gilead Warns: Examine Patent Portfolios for Double Patenting Pitfalls

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - Addressing invalidation of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s...more

A Combination of References Need Only Provide a “Reasonable Expectation of Success”

Hoffmann La-Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the validity of a dosing regimen patent in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 2 February 2013

In This Issue: • Licensing to Foreign Manufacturers Satisfies Domestic Industry • Appeal Found to Be Moot in Light of “Side Bet” • Mere Design Choice Leads to Obviousness Finding • Design Patent Infringement...more

Patent Watch: C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos

[T]he preamble constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis, or when it "is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body." On December 27, 2012, in C.W. Zumbiel Co. v....more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more

22 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

"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.
×