News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art

PTAB Makes Precedential Its Multi-Factor Approach To Assessing Follow-On Petitions

by Jones Day on

Serial IPR or CBM petitions challenging the same patent claims have been a recurring issue for the PTAB. On October 18, 2017, the PTAB designated as precedential a portion of a decision by an expanded panel that addressed...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

The Circuit affirms the decision in Secured Mail v. Universal to dismiss an infringement case under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that all of the asserted claims of the seven patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter....more

General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha: PTAB Explains Factors Considers for Follow-On Petitions

On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing...more

The PTAB Holds That Testimony Concerning Customer Statements and Their State of Mind Constitutes Hearsay

On September 22, 2017, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision regarding claims directed to a switching regulator comprising a power switch and a control circuit. The PTAB found...more

PTAB Disqualifies Reference for Failure to Show Public Accessibility

by Jones Day on

The PTAB’s recent final written decision denying a finding of unpatentability in ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, Case IPR2016-00927, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2017) highlights the importance of obtaining affidavit evidence to...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Jang v. Boston Scientific, the Circuit takes on the doctrine of ensnarement, affirming a district court’s grant of JMOL based on the patentee’s inability to develop a hypothetical claim that covered the accused stent but...more

Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

by Jones Day on

On September 13, 2017, the PTAB, a five-judge panel, granted a petition to institute an inter partes review brought by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) regarding...more

An update on the shifting standard for IPR estoppel

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings continue to be as popular as ever. Filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) are up year-over-year, and the trend doesn’t appear to be slowing. While the advantages of...more

E.D. Tex. Finds that Prior Art Estoppel Applies to References Rather than Specific Combinations of References

Defendant Hewlett Packard filed a Petition for IPR challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 as invalid in view of two prior art references. On the same day Defendant requested joinder with an earlier filed IPR that...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In In Re Cray, the panel grants Cray’s petition for a writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court’s handling of the case is not consistent with its case law regarding what is “a regular and established place of...more

Eastern District of Texas Judge Holds that Statements Made to PTAB Constitute Disclaimer

On September 9, 2017, an Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation holding that a plaintiff was estopped from asserting its patent infringement claims because statements made in response to...more

CAFC Finds Harmless Error in USPTO Reliance On Doctrine of Inherency

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more

When Your Background Dooms The Invention

37 CFR 1.77(b)(7) suggests that a patent application should include a “Background of the Invention.” The Background of the Invention, however, can cause trouble if the drafter is not careful....more

PTAB Denies Untimely Request to Stay Pending Reexaminations

by Jones Day on

In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR...more

Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more

Mere Quantification of the Results of a Known Process is Not Patentable

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, [2016-2287] (September 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an Inter Partes reexamination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301 on a method of making cable...more

Follow-on IPR Petitions are Unfair to Patent Owners and an Inefficient Use of the Process

In General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, (September 6, 2017), and IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, and IPR2016-01361, an expanded panel of the PTAB denied...more

Secondary Considerations Win Again

by Jones Day on

As we have previously discussed (on February 1, March 1, March 30, and May 19), reliance on secondary considerations of non-obviousness has been hit or miss for patent owners trying to convince PTAB panels that the secondary...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Intercontinental v. Kellogg involves a fight between two food industry powerhouses, Kraft and Kellogg, in which a majority of the panel affirms summary judgment of obviousness of a patent directed to a resealable cookie...more

8 Ways To Avoid Inter Partes Review Estoppel

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Inter partes review has become an enormously popular method of challenging patents. One important downside of filing for IPR, however, is that, if the petitioner loses, it faces an estoppel that could prevent it from raising...more

Patent Myths Corrected – Part Two

by Weintraub Tobin on

My last column was the first of two columns discussing some of the most common misconceptions or myths about patents. Here is the second part, starting with number five on my list. A Patent Does Not Give the Patent Owner...more

PTAB’s Consideration of Prior Art Needs a Tune Up

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where the PTAB had failed to consider a specific prior art combination and unpatentability argument advanced by the...more

Obviousness Does Not Require Absolute Predictability

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three inter partes re-examination decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating numerous claims in each of...more

PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

by Jones Day on

In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the Board denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the...more

[Webinar] Prior Art: Understanding and Attacking Prior Art Rejections - September 6, 10:00am ET

Join us for a compare and contrast discussion on what constitutes prior art in the United States and in Europe, and how to respond to rejections over that art. Relying on over sixty years combined prosecution experience...more

661 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 27
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.