News & Analysis as of

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 Prior claiming was superseded by the broader concept...more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

A Compound Is Obvious Where Only Minor Changes to a Prior Art “Lead Compound” Are Required to Make the Claimed Compound

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...more

Motion to Stay Pending CBM Review Granted Where Non-Practicing Entity Did Not Seek Preliminary Injunction

Boku, Inc. ("Boku") filed a CBM petition with the PTAB seeking review of the patentability of Plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168 (the "'168 patent"). The petition challenged all claims of the '168 patent on grounds that...more

IPR Spotlight Series: What to Do When the PTAB Denies Your Petition to Institute IPR

Inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) became available on September 16, 2012 as a post-grant review procedure to challenge the patentability of issued claims based on prior art patents and...more

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Case Name: Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2013-1245, -1246, -1247, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10710 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna and Chen presiding; Opinion by Prost, C.J.; Dissent-in-part by Chen,...more

Case Alert -- Federal Circuit Reverses District Court Denying Stay Pending Covered Business Method Review

On July 10, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., in which it reversed the district court’s order denying Salesforce’s motion to stay the district court suit pending...more

Challenging Prior Art Status In Post-Grant Proceedings

An inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding allows a party to challenge the validity of a patent before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). In an IPR proceeding,...more

More Details, Details

Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. J2 Global, Inc., IPR2014-01027, Paper 4 (July 7, 2014), the Board granted the petition a filing date, but required the petition to fix the claim charts, which may not “include arguments,...more

Prior Art “Patents and Printed Publications” Include the Patent Under Review

In Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Limited, IPR2014-00309, Paper 07/03/2014 19, the Board denied reconsideration that admitted prior art in the patent under review constituted “prior...more

General Conclusions About Basic Knowledge or Common Sense Are Insufficient for Core Factual Findings

K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC - Addressing whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) properly refused to reject as obvious a claim calling for a multi-prong electrical connection, the U.S. Court of...more

Expert's Failure to Properly Apply Obviousness Standard Leads to Vacated Jury Verdict

InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc. - Addressing the sufficiency of expert testimony to support a jury’s finding of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district...more

Printed Publication Need Not Be Easily Located to Be Prior Art

Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc. - Addressing the standard for establishing that an alleged prior art reference qualifies as a “printed publication,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Munchkin, Inc. and Toys “R” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, LTD.

Decision Date: April 21, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D617,465 - Holding: Claimed design is obvious and therefore UNPATENTABLE - Opinion: Petitioners Munchkin, Inc. and Toys...more

Keeping Score at the PTAB

Motorola v. Mobile Scanning; Adidas v. Nike; Berk-Tek v. Belden; Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. - In the final written decisions of five inter partes reviews (IPRs) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more

Pre-AIA Statute Did Not Give Patent Owner in an Ex Parte Reexamination the Right to Bring an Action in District Court

In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien - Addressing whether a patent owner involved in a pre-America Invents Act (AIA) ex parte reexamination, could challenge an adverse reexamination decision in a district court...more

Combining Two Drugs Is Not Always Obvious

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of combining two known hypertension medications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling of...more

A Combination of References Need Only Provide a “Reasonable Expectation of Success”

Hoffmann La-Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the validity of a dosing regimen patent in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower...more

146 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6