New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Addresses Waiver of Argument Not Raised in Request for...more
In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the case addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits...more
This decision emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B)....more
Addressing forfeiture of issues on appeal and sufficiency of the asserted prior art, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, explaining that a party does not...more
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Design Patent Obviousness Test Thrown Out - The U.S. Court of Appeals...more
In Virtek Visions international ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., DBA Aligned Vision Nos. 2022-1998, 2022-2022 (Fed Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), the Federal Circuit reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings...more
On remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board considered the petitioner’s reply arguments and evidence regarding the...more
In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as obvious. See...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) This week’s Case of the Week mostly resolves an appeal filed five years ago, following decisions from the...more
An en banc panel of the Federal Circuit recently heard arguments in a case that could change how courts assess design patents for “obviousness.” LKQ Corporation and GM Global Technology Operations LLC are engaged in a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in determining that an operating manual did not qualify as printed...more
In 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued three opinions regarding U.S. design patents. The three 2023 opinions are Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., LKQ...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
Netflix petitioned for IPR of a DivX patent related to “trick play” functionality, which allows a user to fast forward, rewind, and scene skip frames. Netflix’s petition argued that the challenged claims would have been...more
LKQ filed an inter partes review challenging GM’s auto fender design patent. LKQ was once a licensed repair part vendor for GM. But, after renewal negotiations fell through in early 2022, GM informed LKQ that the parts LKQ...more
Volvo Penta appealed from a Board decision finding all of its claims unpatentable as obvious. The claims at issue covered a tractor-type stern drive for a boat. Volvo Penta raised three main issues on appeal, arguing (1) that...more
This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more
Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more