Obviousness Patents

News & Analysis as of

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

Cooling Off Defendant’s Obviousness Case

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order Entering Judgment for Plaintiff, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST (Judge Jon S. Tigar) - Questions of obviousness can present some of the most...more

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6936 (FSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26207 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015) (Hochberg, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Atelvia® (risedronate /...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

First IPR Design Patent Decision Affirmed by Federal Circuit

In the first inter partes review of a design patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision that the only claim was unpatentable. Design patent D617,465 on a drinking cup was the...more

InSite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Federal Circuit showed once again the importance of a district court's factual findings (and the deference the appellate court gives those findings, particularly when supported by expert testimony), in InSite Vision Inc....more

Toward a Bullet-Proof Petition – Motivation to Combine

While 8 out of 10 Petitions seeking inter partes review are granted by the PTAB, there remain several key errors that unsuccessful Petitioners make. Among them is the failure to provide sufficient factual basis for a...more

Prior Art Must Criticize or Otherwise Disparage the Claimed Solution to Constitute a Teaching Away - PNY Techs., Inc., v. Phison...

Addressing the question of whether claims covering a particular type of USB plug would have been obvious, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found the claims to be unpatentable, concluding that while one...more

Antedating by Third-Party Reduction to Practice Not Enough—Conception Needed - Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

In its decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a design patent related to a slow cooker buffet server, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruled that the...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

Newco Tank – Cautionary Note on Over-reliance on Headings by Patent Drafters

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an appeal from a Re-examination Board which had considered Canadian Patent 2,421,384 and had determined that claims 12-14 were cancelled because they were obvious in light...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

Teaching Away Arguments Fail to Gain Traction with PTAB

A favored, but largely unsuccessful, line of defense for Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the argument that the prior art references-at-issue teach away from their combination. A typical form of this...more

PTAB Update -- Biopharmaceutical Edition

Earlier this week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") handed down what is thought to be the first set of inter partes review ("IPR") Final Written Decisions ("FWDs") in the biopharmaceutical industry. And...more

Combinations of Predictable Elements from the Prior Art Need Not Be Advantageous - Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.

Addressing the propriety of combining prior art in an obviousness analysis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) determined that a patent for a spinal implant for...more

Pharmaceutical Patent Score a Win - Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.

In three separate but related final written decisions in the first successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

District Court Action Dismissed Without Prejudice Does Not Bar Filing of IPR Petition - Nautique Boat Co., Inc. v. Malibu Boats,...

Addressing whether a district court action dismissed without prejudice bars a filing of an inter partes review (IPR) petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Federal Circuit IPR Scoreboard PTAB: 2 Patent Owner: 0

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its first decision in an appeal of a final decision from a post-issuance review proceeding under the America Invents Act. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and...more

Obviousness Post KSR

On April 30, 2007 in KSR v Teleflex, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its view expressed many years ago that patents should not be granted for inventions that had too low a level of inventivity. As Justice Kennedy in a unanimous...more

Prior Art Reference Does Not “Teach Away” if It Fails to Criticize, Disclaim or Discourage the Claimed Technique

Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, L.L.C. - Addressing the obviousness issue whether an asserted secondary reference impermissibly changes the principle of operation of a primary reference, the U.S. Patent and Trademark...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

Board Teaches Patent Owner About Precedent, and Petitioner About Showing Obviousness

Often times the best lessons are those learned at someone else’s expense. One such case is Valeo, Inc.v. Magna Electronics Inc., IPR2014-01206, Paper 13 (December 23, 2014). The Patent Owner urged the Board to exercise its...more

More Misinformation Regarding the Patent System and Non-Practicing Entities

The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more

Failure to Address All Graham Factors Dooms CBM Petition

Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Technologies LLC - Addressing the showing required to institute covered business method (CBM) proceedings based on obviousness, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and...more

154 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7

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.
×