News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Claim Construction

PTAB Grants Contingent Motion to Amend on Remand from Federal Circuit

On July 17, 2017, the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (the “Board”) granted in-part, Patent Owner’s conditional motion to amend on remand from an appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a final written decision issued in April 2015,...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2017

by WilmerHale on

Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2015-2006, 7/17/17) (Newman, Mayer, O'Malley) - Newman, J.Reversing and vacating judgments of invalidity for obviousness in consolidated appeals. ...more

PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims

In IPCOM GmbH & Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation, and...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Reasonable Notice to Patent Owner Is a Must

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) decision finding a patent obvious and directed the PTAB to provide sufficient factual support for its...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more

“Means” Does Not Always Mean “Means Plus Function”

In Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L. [2016-2018] (June 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision in IPR 2014-01236 that all of the challenged claims in U.S. Patent 7,548,875 were invalid for obviousness....more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Affirms Different Invalidity Results at PTAB and District Court - In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-1678, 2016-1679, the Federal Circuit held that prior judicial opinions...more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. Please see full publication below for more information....more

PTAB Not Barred from Using Patent Owner Submissions as a Basis for Holding Claims Unpatentable

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to steel making methods were obvious in Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, No. 2016-2233 (Fed. Cir. May 11,...more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

PTAB Finds Abbvie’s Humira Patent Unpatentable

by Goodwin on

The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00172, filed by Coherus, finding Abbvie’s U.S. Patent 8,889,135 unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. The ‘135 patent is directed to methods of treating rheumatoid...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2017

by WilmerHale on

Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent. All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification,...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

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

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

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

by Knobbe Martens on

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

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research...

The Federal Circuit handed down two related opinions last week, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, one of which raised the question...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

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 Review | January 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

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

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

2017 Intellectual Property Law Year In Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

77 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
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.