News & Analysis as of

Movants Face a High Bar to Succeed on Motions to Amend

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. - In response to a patent owner’s motion to amend its claims in an inter partes review (IPR) petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent...more

PTAB Disqualifies Art as Being Non-Analogous to Claimed Invention

A limited number of cases, to date, have dealt with the issue of analogous prior art in an obviousness analysis. In Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., IPR2014-00358, the Board addressed this type of issue, finding in...more

Don’t Try to Barnstorm Proof of Printed Publication

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review based on a petitioner’s failure to prove that a document was indeed a printed publication qualifying as prior art to the patent at issue. ...more

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review When Ongoing Proceedings Raise Substantially Similar Arguments

In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petition by Same...

Petitioner Unilever filed an earlier petition for IPR of 33 claims of a patent. In the Decision on Institution, the Board denied review of 11 claims and granted review of the rest. Unilever then filed a second petition for...more

PTAB Declines to Institute Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Based on "New" Reference

In January 2013, Petitioner IBS filed a petition for IPR. Five months later, IBS filed a second petition for IPR on the same patent claims. The follow-on petition relied on art from the first petition and other prior art,...more

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petitions by Different...

Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent. Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the Board had instituted trial on two of those three...more

PTAB Declines to Revisit Written Description and Prior Art Issues Considered During Prosecution in IPR

In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009. Petitioner PRISM argued the challenged claims lacked written...more

IP Newsflash - October 2014

Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Based On “Intentionally Selective” Disclosure - On September 26, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the unenforceability of three American Calcar patents,...more

Have the Courts lowered the bar on inventive step?

Implications - A number of key points arising from the recent AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99 decision have broad implications for the assessment of invention step under the Patents Act (1990). -...more

Federal Circuit Review - September 2014

Misrepresentation Regarding Prior Art Lead to Inequitable Conduct - In APOTEX INC. v. UCB, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1674, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of inequitable conduct. Apotex sued UCB for patent...more

PTAB to Apple: No Third or Fourth Bite at the Apple

In inter partes proceeding Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al., IPR2014-00320, Petitioner Apple sought a second request for rehearing, before an expanded panel of the PTAB, on the Board's decision not to...more

PGR Report -- The Attack of 35 U.S.C. § 112

Last week, on September 2, 2014, Accord Healthcare, Inc. ("Accord") filed what appears to be the second-ever Post-Grant Review ("PGR") (see Petition). This PGR was for U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 ("the '219 Patent"), which is...more

Checking It Twice: Verify Facts and Arguments on Prior Art to Avoid Inequitable Conduct in Patent Prosecution

In the case Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc., released in August 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct on the part of an inventor-drafter, as the court found clear and convincing...more

Garmin Factors Continue to Keep Additional Discovery Out of Reach

In Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol, Limited, IPR2013-00309, Paper (September 4, 2014), petitioner sought (1) detailed sales records of the products covered and not-covered by the...more

Corroborating Evidence Insufficient in Final Written Decision Canceling All Claims

One of the more fact-dependent inquiries in patent disputes is the issue of conception and reduction to practice. This issue was raised in an inter partes review setting in CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing,...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law - Summer 2014 - Vol. 12, Issue 3

In This Issue: - The Analysis for Design Patent Infringement Post-Egyptian Goddess - Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank - Capitol Records, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc.: Future of...more

Beware of the CIP—Parent Applications Can Be Prior Art

Companies file patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to protect promising innovations. Often, however, improvements, additional uses and refinements surface after filing a patent...more

131 Declaration That Was Successful in Prosecution Deemed Insufficient in Inter Partes Review

The Board proved willing to overturn a previous patent examiner’s judgment in another type of issue in Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, where, in instituting an inter partes review trial, the Board found that...more

Prior claiming in Australia…has news of its demise been greatly exaggerated? Is prior claiming still applicable to the remaining...

Prior claiming was a ground of invalidity under the Patents Act 1952 (1952 Act). It prevented grant of a patent claiming subject matter already claimed by another patent. Prior claiming was superseded by the broader concept...more

Effect On Settlement Of Post-Grant Patent Review Proceedings

The recent America Invents Act both modified and created procedures for challenging patents in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after they have been issued, which are called post grant...more

Defeating Indefiniteness Challenge with Petitioner’s Witness

In eBay Inc. v. Lockwood, CBM2014-00025, Paper 34, CBM2014-00026, Paper 35 (August 12, 2014) the Board denied eBay’s motion to expunge the declaration of its expert, directed to unpatenability of the prior art, which eBay...more

Inter Partes Review Still Difficult for Patent Owners

EcoWater Systems LLC v. Culligan International Co. - In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) found several claims subject to the requestor’s petition to be unpatentable over the...more

Anticipation Grounds Denied By Board When Elements of Claim Not in Single Embodiment

With increasing frequency, challenge grounds in IPR Petitions are being denied because Petitioners are attempting to shortcut the proper anticipation analysis by combining teachings from various, distinct embodiments in the...more

Examiner and Board Must Be Consistent in Prior Art-Based Rejections of Similarly-Worded Claims

Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee - Addressing the issue of whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) erred by rejecting some claims as obvious, but not...more

160 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7