New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
In only its third precedential patent case of 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed two discrete issues. It established further precedent concerning whether references on web pages and as part of meetings of interested artisans...more
Samsung successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several of Papst’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437. Prior to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of the ’437 patent...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP. Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may not cancel claims on the...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference....more
On October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the ongoing patent litigations between Apple and Samsung that began in the Northern District of California. The district court had found at summary judgment...more
Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare (No. 2015-1977, -1986, -1987, 10/20/16) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Denying petition for rehearing and confirming the Court's earlier order. “The Board's vacatur of its...more
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
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
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
In another twist of fortunes in the long-running smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has once again overturned Apple’s patent infringement jury verdict – this...more