Patents Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

Connect the Dots: Petition That Fails to Explain How Prior Art Could Be Combined Can Doom a PTAB Proceeding

While claim charts are often used to compare prior art to challenged patent claims, simply submitting those claim charts as part of a petition to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), without more, could lose your case....more

Considerations for Submission of Experimental Evidence to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Experimental evidence can be a powerful tool in succeeding in an inter partes review proceeding, particularly in the case where inherent properties of prior art are at issue. As indicated by the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §...more

PTAB’s Ambiguous Language Is Basis For Federal Circuit Vacating PTAB’s Opinion

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit remanded a PTAB decision for just the second time. In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision upholding the validity of...more

Prometheus v. Roxane – A Glimpse of Christmas Future?

A Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Dyk, Taranto and Hughes affirmed the district court’s invalidation of a Prometheus “add-on” patent (U.S. Pat. No. 6,284,770) to a method to treat a form of irritable bowel syndrome, IBS-D, with...more

Don’t Bury the Lede: Failure to Explicitly List Prior Art Witnesses Can Preclude Them from Testifying

Order Striking Witnesses from Supplemental Initial Disclosures, Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (HRL) (Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd) - How much disclosure is sufficient when you want...more

Starbucks Brews Successful CBMs - Starbucks Corp. v. Ameranth, Inc.

Addressing patent eligibility for a covered business method (CBM) review under Section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) found the patents-at-issue to be eligible and...more

Preponderance Standard Applies to Ex Parte Re-examinations - Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee

Addressing the presumption of validity in ex parte re-examinations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that the presumption of validity does not apply to patents under reexamination in the U.S....more

A Closer Look at Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

Last week, we analyzed the Federal Circuit's Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. case from early September. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that an IPR petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that an...more

Claim Amendments Are Not Always What They Seem - R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.

Addressing whether language added to a claim during ex parte re-examination resulted in substantive changes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the infringement claims,...more

URGENT: Change to Correction of Claims for Foreign Priority Dates

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) provides that the filing date of an earlier foreign patent application may now be the effective prior art date for subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent...more

Declarations from Inventors of Prior Art Could Create Genuine Dispute over Motivation to Combine - Ivera Medical Corp. v. Hospira,...

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity because plaintiff patentee established a genuine issue of...more

Wertheim, Dynamic Drinkware and the AIA

In Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that in order for a patent to qualify as prior art as of its provisional application filing date, the provisional application must support the...more

Federal Circuit: Prior Disclosure Is Not Necessarily Prior Art - Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding that an IPR petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that a cited prior art U.S. patent reference...more

Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Case Name: Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 12-1011-GMS (consolidated), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110099 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2015) (Sleet, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Velcade® (bortezomib); U.S....more

Phigenix v Genentech; Claims Found Not Unpatentable In Final Written Decision

On October 27, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in an IPR challenging claims 1-8 of US Patent 8,337,856, directed to immunoconjugates comprising an anti-ErbB antibody, such as the humanized anti-ErbB2 antibody known...more

Supplier to ANDA Filer Is Not Liable for Induced Infringement Until After ANDA Approval - Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC

Addressing the scope of the safe harbor provision of § 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding that supplying an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to the filer of...more

Stratasys Extrudes Past IPR Petitions; Set to Build 3D Printer Case Against Afinia

Stratasys asserted four of its 3D printing patents against Afinia in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota. Afinia responded by petitioning for inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patents. Yet, Stratasys escaped...more

“Raging Bull” and the Patent Act: Laches Still Available in Patent Cases - SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit convened an en banc panel to examine the Supreme Court’s “Raging Bull” decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. in the context of deciding whether laches remains a...more

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

It is well accepted that in order to establish that a patent is entitled to claim priority to a previously filed provisional application, it must be shown that the claims of the patent have written description support in the...more

Morsa II: Admissions Enable Prior Art

In its 2013 decision in In re Morsa, the Federal Circuit vacated an anticipation rejection where “both the Board and the examiner failed to engage in a proper enablement analysis” to establish the enabling quality of the...more

District Court Declines to Admit Denial of Petition for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") into Evidence before Jury

In a pending patent infringement action, Apple moved to preclude the plaintiff, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundations ("WARF") from offering evidence or argument regarding the Patent Office's denial of an IPR that Apple...more

USPTO Announces Change in Practice for Correcting Foreign Priority Claims

In a Federal Register notice published earlier this month (80 Fed. Reg. 60367), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a change in practice for the correction of errors in foreign priority claims. Under the change in...more

Split 5-Judge Panel Allows Issue Joinder as a Way Around the One-Year Filing Deadline

The Board continues to grapple with the issue of joinder where a party seeks to join a petition that would otherwise be time-barred with an earlier-filed petition. In Zhongshan v. Nidec Motor, an expanded 5-judge panel–with...more

Takeaways from Chisum’s Washington, D.C. September 2015 Seminar

On September 24-25, 2015, the Chisum Patent Academy held a two-day seminar at the offices of Kaye Scholer LLP in Washington, DC to discuss and debate current developments in U.S. patent law. The roundtable seminar group was...more

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Last week the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's finding of invalidity and non-infringement in ANDA litigation between Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz. In so doing, the Court deferred to the factual...more

363 Results
View per page
Page: of 15

"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.
*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.