News & Analysis as of

Wireless Does Not Mean “Without Wires”; “Streaming Video” Does Not Mean Emailing a Video File - In re Kevin R. Imes

Reviewing a final written decision of U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding application claims unpatentable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in concluding that...more

Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

Case Name: Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Civ. No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150283 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) (Sleet, J.) (When a POSA would have to undertake significant guesswork to vary the parameters of...more

Combinations of Predictable Elements from the Prior Art Need Not Be Advantageous - Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.

Addressing the propriety of combining prior art in an obviousness analysis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) determined that a patent for a spinal implant for...more

Pharmaceutical Patent Score a Win - Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Supernus Pharms., Inc.

In three separate but related final written decisions in the first successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Proving Inherent Anticipation – Make or Break Your Case With Expert Testimony

Anticipation is a basic concept in patent law. On its face the concept is simple—if a single prior art reference teaches every element of a claim in the proper context, then the claim is not patentable, i.e., it is...more

Supplementing Information - Post-Institution Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC

Addressing a motion to submit supplemental information after institution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the motion, finding that the information—a supplemental...more

District Court Action Dismissed Without Prejudice Does Not Bar Filing of IPR Petition - Nautique Boat Co., Inc. v. Malibu Boats,...

Addressing whether a district court action dismissed without prejudice bars a filing of an inter partes review (IPR) petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal...more

PTAB Warns Patent Owner that Not Participating Will Result in Adverse Judgment - Shire Dev. LLC v. LCS Group, LLC

Faced for the first time with a patent owner unwilling to participate in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) permitted the filing of a paper...more

CBM Review Based on New Combinations of Prior Art - eBay Inc., v. Moneycat LTD.

Addressing an alleged abuse of discretion asserted by a patent owner in instituting a covered business method (CBM) patent review, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded...more

Warner Chilcott Co, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 2014-1439, 2014-1441, 2014-1444, 2014-1445, 2014-1446, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21946 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Reyna and Taranto...more

Court Rules PTAB Decision to Institute AIA Review Is Final, Cannot be Appealed

In the first-ever ruling in an appeal of an American Invents Act review decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed last week that a speed limit indicator patent is invalid. As an initial issue in the decision on...more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings Continue to Be an Efficient and Effective Way to Address Patent Infringement Allegations in Light...

A recent court decision suggests that it may be even easier to invalidate patent claims via a relatively quick proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) – known as inter partes review (“IPR”) – as...more

Five Out Of Six Disputed Claims Are Anticipated In Dispute Relating To Hybrid Memory Patents

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘719 patent is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation with respect to disputed claims of the ‘719 patent...more

Federal Circuit Sides with Patent Office in First IPR Final Written Decision Review

On February 4, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) first inter partes review (“IPR”) Final Written Decision. In fact, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. was the first appeal...more

IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Trial and Appeals Board Decision in First Appeal of Inter...

On February 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-1301, upholding a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate claims of a patent...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB in First Completed Inter Partes Review Appeal

On February 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first precedential decision reviewing a completed inter partes review (IPR) proceeding under the America Invents Act. The Court held...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Use of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims in IPR Proceedings

In affirming the decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claims in...more

Production of prosecuting attorney’s memorandum about prior art waives privilege

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus B.V. Case Number: 1:14-cv-01650-KBF Judge Forrest, having determined that Regeneron’s production of a memorandum discussing prior art was a waiver of attorney-client...more

Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Office’s First Decision of Unpatentability in an Inter Partes Review

Today in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 14-1301, a majority (Judges Dyk and Clevenger) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deem certain claims of a speed limit indicator patent...more

Federal Circuit Decides Appeal from First Final PTAB Decision in Inter Partes Review

On February 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its first opinion in an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA). In In re Cuozzo...more

PTAB Will Not Consider An Expert Report Prepared for Litigation And Created After the Filing of the Petition

In IPR2014-01510, 01511, and 01513, in connection with its preliminary response the Patent Owner Mag Aerospace Industries, LLC, submitted an expert report by its expert in the related litigation. The expert report addressed...more

Claims Regarding User Interface Systems And Methods For Cars Are Held Invalid

The disputed technology relates to user interface systems and methods for a vehicle. The parties agreed during oral argument that construction of the term “page” is the only matter at issue for determining whether a...more

Patent Owner: Preponderance of Evidence Standard Can Never Be Met Without Expert Testimony

In IPR2013-00357, Patent Owner Overland Storage, Inc. filed a request for rehearing of the final written decision holding that claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 are unpatentable. The basis for the patent owner's...more

Obviousness Post KSR

On April 30, 2007 in KSR v Teleflex, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its view expressed many years ago that patents should not be granted for inventions that had too low a level of inventivity. As Justice Kennedy in a unanimous...more

Patent Owner Must Distinguish Universe of All Known Prior Art to Substitute a New Claim

Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. - Detailing the requirements for amending claims in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or...more

216 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 9