Obviousness Patents

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Rules That PTAB May Base AIA Trial Decision on Facts Outside Petition for Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a decision by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating two patents after an inter partes review proceeding, even though the decision...more

A Combination of References Can be Obvious Even if it Requires a Bit of Work

In Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, [2015-1533] (June 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-001006 that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489, were obvious. Allied first...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2016

Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Have you ever mixed up the obviousness determinations of "motivation to combine" and "reasonable expectation of success"? If so, you are apparently not alone -- the Federal Circuit recently faulted the Patent Trial and...more

In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2016)

This case is notable mainly because it is the first Federal Circuit decision to distinguish itself from Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and also because it is another reminder that the wall between patentable subject matter,...more

Patents-In Suit In ANDA Trial Are Non-Obvious

A 6-day bench trial was held from April 6-14, 2015. After trial, the court entered stipulations and orders regarding infringement of certain claims of the ‘178 and ‘206 patents. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the...more

Post-Trial Finding Of Non-Obviousness Issues

A 6-day bench trial was held from April 6-14, 2015. The court considers post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,613,950 challenged by defendant on the basis of obviousness....more

Not Obvious to Combine for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

Summary: Appellant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) an obviousness rejection to claims directed to a user interface that displays currency trading information. Appellant argued in the appeal that the...more

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Federal Circuit Says It's Required to Accord the PTAB Deference Until Instructed Otherwise by...

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Fish & Richardson Obtains Full Federal Circuit Reversal for Cutsforth, Inc. After Faulty Inter Partes Review

Decision is first-ever full reversal of an IPR decision of non-patentability; clears way for infringement lawsuit to proceed against MotivePower, Inc. Fish & Richardson’s appellate and post-grant teams won a major victory for...more

TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Early last month, the Federal Circuit addressed an important question regarding the interplay between a decision to institute inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the ultimate determination by the...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. Depomed, reviewing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on three related inter partes reviews. While not quite a...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2016

Under O2 Micro, a District Court Must Provide a Claim Construction if the Parties Dispute the Meaning of a Claim Term - In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1237, the Federal...more

Method of Treatment Claims Cancelled in View of Prior Art under Theory of Obviousness, but Not Anticipation - Eli Lilly and Co. v....

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found all of Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute’s (LA-Bio Med) patent claims unpatentable on the basis of obviousness in view of a...more

Expected Toxicity of Claimed Immunoconjugates Thwarts Showing of Prima Facie Obviousness (Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,...

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) upheld the patentability of Phigenix’s patent claims that were challenged on the basis of obviousness. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,...more

Re-Exam Claiming Opposite Enantiomer Not Enough to Invalidate Patent (Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., (Fed. Cir....

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding the five asserted patents. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....more

A Substantially Pure Isomer Is Obvious in View of Both a Completely Pure Isomer and an Impure Mixture (Spectrum Pharmas. V. Sandoz...

Addressing an unusual twist on an obviousness case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held a substantially pure isomer obvious in view prior art disclosing both a completely pure isomer and an impure mixture....more

Now It’s Apple and Samsung: Patents, Rulings and Appeals

In a Federal Circuit decision handed down recently, the appeals court overturned a $120 million jury verdict awarded to Apple. Samsung prevailed in this, the third appeal in this litigation. Two of Apple’s patents were found...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2016

Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more

Retrial Is Granted In HVAC Patent Dispute

Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction is moot. Defendants’ post-trial motions are granted in part and denied in part. The disputed technology relates to self-configuring controls for HVAC systems. The...more

In Obviousness Analysis Loss of Benefit Is Not the Same as Inoperable (In re Urbanski)

Addressing “teaching away” arguments in the context of obviousness issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) obviousness decision, holding a person...more

Making the Obvious Point: How Failing to Provide Motivation to Modify a Prior Art Reference Can Lose Your Case, Even When That...

To invalidate a patent as obvious, a prior art reference often must be modified to incorporate the teachings of another prior art reference. However, the Supreme Court has held that the obviousness analysis must include some...more

It Can Happen: PTAB Alters Final Written Decision on Rehearing - Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC

In a rare decision granting a petitioner’s rehearing request, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) reversed its earlier position in a final written decision where it found that the petitioner had not shown that...more

Knobbe Martens Client STAR Envirotech Wins Affirmance of IPR Decision Finding Patent Valid

On December 31, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that a STAR Envirotech patent relating to its evaporative emission testing tools is valid and not...more

Directing a Known Treatment to a Sub-Population of Patients Is Obvious - Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

Addressing obviousness issues, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidity conclusion, agreeing that the elements present in the prior art—including earlier disclosed genus...more

245 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×