Obviousness Claim Construction

News & Analysis as of

Nearly Expired Is Not the Same as Expired: The Board Clarifies Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review - Apple, Inc....

Addressing the standard to be applied for claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to create an...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

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...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

Ornamental Feature of Claim Given No Patentable Weight by PTAB in Obviousness Analysis

Not all claim limitations are treated equally. In Crocs, Inc. v. Polliwalks, Inc., IPR2014-00424, involving US Pat. No. 8,613,148, the Board addressed an argument for patentability based on an ornamental feature found in the...more

Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB [Video]

The PTAB is beginning to develop a reputation as being harsh towards patent owners and the validity of their patents. Why have patent owners struggled so much before the PTAB? Attorneys Seth Northrop and Cyrus Morton discuss...more

Dissents and Concurrences Popping up in IPR Proceedings

The PTAB has been remarkably consistent to date in its decisions regarding the variety of issues in inter partes review practice. Issues both simple and complex have typically been resolved by one panel and future panels,...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

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

Developments in Patent Law 2013; The D.C. Bar Year in Review

In this article: - Patentability, Validity, and Procurement of Patents - Interpretation and Infringement of Patents - Enforcement of Patents - Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court - Excerpt...more

Hindsight and Teaching Away Arguments Fall Short in Decision to Initiate IPR Trial

In a short decision, Fellowes was able to get 16 challenged claims of a Speculative Product Design patent into a trial for inter partes review, in a case styled as Fellowes, Inc. v. Speculative Product Design, LLC...more

Federal Circuit Reverses Board Rejections That Strayed From Claim Construction

In the non-precedential decision in In re Eaton, the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO Board decision affirming rejections of anticipation and obviousness. The court found that the Board decision strayed from its own claim...more

Shoe Wars Reach PTAB as Inter Partes Review Brought by Adidas is Granted Against Nike Patent

Challenging a patent of a major industry rival, Adidas was able to get all 46 challenged claims of a Nike patent into a trial for inter partes review in a case styled as Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. (IPR2013-00067), involving U.S....more

Federal Circuit Review - October 2013

Late Payment of Patent Maintenance Fees Not Inequitable Conduct - In Network Signatures Inc, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Appeal No. 12-1492, The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 9, September 2013

Patents/Preliminary Injunction: Preliminary Injunction Ordered Based on Appellate Claim Construction Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. - Addressing a preliminary injunction filed by a defendant in a...more

Rambus Inc. v. Rea (Fed. Cir. 2013) - A Little Reminder to the PTO about Due Process and the Importance of Objective Evidence of...

In its decision on September 24th, the Federal Circuit reminded the Patent Office that the principles of due process are still alive and kicking and cannot be ignored by the Patent Office's judiciary. The case came to...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 5, May 2013

Patent Exhaustion Rejected: Patented Seed Purchaser Has No Right to Make Copies: Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - In a narrow ruling that reaffirms the scope of patent protection over seeds, and possibly over other...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

IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 12, December 2012

In This Issue: Patents - ..Federal Circuit Rules It’s Own Standards Apply When Considering Preliminary Injunctions ..Preliminary Testing of Medical Devices in Animals Enables Their Use in...more

19 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, 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.
×