News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Claim Construction

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

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

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

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

Enfish, Microsoft Receive Mixed Results on PTAB Rulings

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of claim construction and obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s) constructions and invalidity rulings, clearing the way...more

Federal Circuit Review | November 2016

Fraud-Detection Patent Claimed Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Patentee’s Effort to Narrow Claim Scope

One wrinkle of IPR practice is that patentees are often in the position of advocating a narrower claim scope than the challenger — just the opposite of what is usually seen in district court litigation. The narrowing...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

Corning v. PPC Broadband: Technological Context Informs Claim Construction; Preambles Do Not

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In a recent PTAB ruling, Corning Gilbert, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. IPR2013-00342, Paper 57 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2016),[1] the PTAB reversed itself on remand from the Federal Circuit. The Corning series of decisions is...more

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

by K&L Gates LLP on

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Internal Fight Over Role of Appellate Court Reveals Substantial Difference of Opinion over Substantial Evidence at Federal Circuit

In Apple, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more

News from Abroad: Canada's Federal Court Questions No File Wrapper Estoppel on Claim Construction

The Supreme Court of Canada in Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc, 2000 SCC 66 rejected the use of extrinsic documents such as file wrappers (patent prosecution histories) for claim construction, on the basis that allowing...more

Prevailing Party Before PTAB May Not Appeal

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the right of a prevailing party to appeal a favorable decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a case from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) and ruled that...more

BRI Does Not Apply if Patent Expires Any Time During Reexamination Proceeding

In In Re CSB-System International, Inc., [2015-1832] (August 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB erred in applying a broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction, instead of a Phillips claim...more

Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) that the claims of Genzyme's U.S Patent Nos. 7,351,410 and 7,655,226 were obvious, in Genzyme Therapeutic...more

Federal Circuit Review | July 2016

Obvious Combinations Do Not Need to Be Physically Combinable - In Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1533, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity finding...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

by WilmerHale on

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

63 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
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!