Obviousness Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

PTAB Convinced by Secondary Considerations to Find Claims Non-Obvious in IPR

On January 19, 2017, the Board issued a final written decision in World Bottling Cap, LLC v Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (IPR2015-01651) finding the challenged claims were not unpatentably obvious over the references...more

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more

PTAB Maintains Obviousness Position after Remand

Addressing obviousness issues, including commercial success, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) maintained its previous decision invalidating the claims of a patent related to coaxial cable connectors after the...more

IPR Estoppel Narrowed Even Further in D. Delaware Ruling

Despite the astounding success for patent challengers to date in IPR proceedings, are you one who has been worried about the effects of the IPR estoppel in future litigation? Has this concern dissuaded you from considering...more

Challenges in Amending Claims in an IPR: The Evolving Burden on a Patent Owner

Amending claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not like amending claims during ex parte prosecution or a reexamination procedure. Generally, the patent owner has only one chance to propose substitute...more

PTAB Reversed on Issue of Diligent Reduction to Practice

Perfect Surgical Techniques (PST), Inc. owns US 6,030,384 (‘384). Olympus petitioned for Inter Partes review of ‘384 as anticipated or obvious over JP H10-33551 (JP ‘551). JP ‘551 published less than one year before the...more

PTAB Obviousness Decision Must Provide “Reasoned Explanation” For Motivation To Combine References

In a recent pair of decisions, the Federal Circuit has tightened the procedural and substantive requirements for Board decisions on obviousness. In Nuvasive, the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB final decision that challenged...more

If the PTAB Doesn’t Say Why the Invention is Obvious, the Federal Circuit Has Nothing to Affirm

In re Nuvasive, Inc., [2015-1670] (December 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB Decision finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit found that Nuvasive...more

In re Nuvasive (Fed. Cir. 2016)

In a precedential decision the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating claims from Nuvasive's U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 in an inter partes review instituted on a petition by...more

PTAB Reverses Obviousness Finding After Remand

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) reversed its previous decision invalidating claims of a patent covering a coaxial cable connector after the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB...more

Federal Circuit Broadly Affirms PTAB’s Determinations on Analogous Art, Motivation to Combine References and Obviousness of Claims

The level of deference the Federal Circuit gives to the Board’s IPR decisions has been surprising to many practitioners, considering the Court’s reputation for reversing district court decisions. The trend of deference to...more

Defendant Found To Infringe Valid Patent After Buprenorphine Trial.

Robinson, J. Findings of fact and conclusions of law following bench trial finding that the asserted claims of one patent are not obvious, the asserted claims of a second patent are obvious, and defendant infringes the valid...more

Failure to Let Patent Owner Address Unpatentability Arguments Relied on by the Board Violates Administrative Procedures

The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same...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

Obviousness Inquiry Allows Flexibility in Considering Teachings of Prior Art

Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of obviousness based on a flexible approach and further clarified the appropriate evaluation of secondary considerations...more

Drug Administration Route Found Obvious

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims directed to oral inhalation of the drug zanamivir to treat influenza. The examiner rejected the...more

PTAB Upholds Lialda Patent Over Kyle Bass IPR Challenge

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a final written decision upholding Shire’s Lialda® patent over the Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge brought by Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs. The...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Accused Infringer Puts the Screws on Patentee

We wrote recently about a summary judgment decision in which Judge Indira Talwani found certain asserted claims of two patents on a type of breakable screw to be obvious in light of the prior art. This ruling came even though...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

Generalized Common Sense Allegations Cannot Be Used to Supply Important Missing Claim Limitation

Addressing the use of common sense for an obviousness analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that conclusory statements about common sense cannot be used to supply missing claim limitations that play a...more

It was Error Not to Consider Secondary Considerations, But They Wouldn’t Have Made a Difference

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., [2015-1853] (September 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision affirming an Examiner’s rejection of claims to a call-screening system that verbally announces a caller’s...more

Four Years of IPRs: Lessons from Proceedings for the Cabilly II Patent

It has been four years since the first inter partes review proceedings were filed in the United States. The first IPR petition, filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day IPRs became available), made it all the way to the...more

Federal Circuit: Go whole-hog on validity below if you want to contest an independent determination of invalidity on appeal

Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v....more

163 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
Popular Topics

"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.
×