Patent Validity Patents

News & Analysis as of

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

Medtronic v. Robert Bosch – Has the Federal Circuit closed the door on reviewing IPR institution decisions?

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more

District Courts on Willful Infringement Post-Halo

In two recent decisions addressing the issue of willful infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recalled its mandate, vacated portions of earlier decisions and remanded to the district court 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

PTAB Rejects Consideration of New Issues on Remand

Addressing the scope of a remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to consider evidence and arguments presented for the first time on remand....more

PTO Must Apply Phillips Standard when Construing Expired Patents **WEB ONLY**

In an opinion addressing the standard for claim construction of a patent that expires during reexamination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s)...more

CAFC’s Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...more

PTAB Refusal to Permit Claim Amendments Remanded

Addressing the standard for granting a motion to amend claims in inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a conclusion by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that the...more

Substantial Evidence Supported Infringement of Limitations That Did Not Need Construction

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on plasticized soft tissue grafts suitable for...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

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Patentee McRO sued a number of video game developers and publishers in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 and 6,611,278. Several of the...more

UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

On September 08, 2016, in UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that UCB's Cimzia® brand antibody does not...more

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016)

Core Wireless Licensing brought an action against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Core contended that LG infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850. LG moved for summary judgment on the grounds...more

U.S. Appeals Court Finds a Software Patent Valid Even Under the Supreme Court’s “Alice” Test

A recent Federal Circuit decision in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, gives patent owners another illustration of patent subject matter eligibility under section 101....more

Ariosa Loses Verinata Patent Challenge

Fetal diagnostic pioneer Ariosa Diagnostics lost its latest attempt to invalidate competitor Verinata Health’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430, “Methods of Fetal Abnormality Detection.” The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Construing Markush Group Claims

In Multilayer Stretch Cling Film v. Berry Plastics, the Federal Circuit provided a detailed discussion of the construction of claims that use Markush group language. The decision emphasizes the closed nature of the...more

A legal look at Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions and trends: PTAB Statistics - Then and Now

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) procedures were enacted on September 16, 2012. Since then, the PTAB has released data on a monthly basis to illustrate the trends in the various petitions and...more

En Banc Federal Circuit To Review Standards for Amending Claims During AIA Proceedings

In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more

In First Set of Post-Grant Review Decisions, PTAB Strikes Down Patents Based on Alice

Addressing for the first time the issue of patent validity in the context of an America Invents Act post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidated two livestock patents as unpatentable under...more

HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc. (PTAB 2016) - Business Method Patent Not Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101

HP Inc. and SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method (CBM) patent review of claims 15 and 20–34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 owned by Big Baboon, Inc. The PTAB, however, determined that the...more

BASCOM—Federal Circuit Holds Internet Content Filtering Patent Passes Alice Test

In a Section 101 analysis under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., “[a]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”—even if individual claim...more

Full Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Jurisdictional Decision with Important Implications for BPCIA Litigation

On June 20, 2016, the full Federal Circuit denied Mylan’s petitions for rehearing en banc in Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 817 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016), leaving intact the panel’s decision affirming two...more

Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Asustek Computer, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

"Quick Look Test" Used by District Court to Support Lack of Preemption and Find Software Claims Patent Eligible - On April 15, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order Denying...more

Decision to Institute IPR Need Not Be Binary - Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may institute inter partes review (IPR) with respect to some but not all of the claims challenged in a petition, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Reversal of Narrow Claim Construction Results in Satisfaction of Claim Element (Avid Technologies, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.)

Addressing the standard to establish a “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer of claim scope during prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s narrow claim construction and...more

30 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
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.
×