Patents Prior Art Appeals

News & Analysis as of

U.S. Supreme Court Eliminates Laches Defense for Damages in Patent Suits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, held in a 7-1 decision that the defense of laches is not available under the Patent Act to bar claims for damages. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB – No 102 Gap Filling

In a precedential opinion dated March 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that in finding a claim anticipated under 35 USC § 102, the Board cannot “fill in missing limitations” simply because a skilled...more

"In SCA Hygiene, Supreme Court Rules Laches Not a Defense to Damages Within Statutory Period in Patent Cases"

In a 7-1 decision issued on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages in a patent...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Holding of Anticipation Despite an Element Missing from the Prior Art

On March 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified, in a precedential opinion, that an anticipating reference must supply all of the claim elements, regardless of what a person of skill in...more

Federal Circuit Limits Scope of Covered Business Method Review

The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association. In clarifying what...more

Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more

Prior Art Preference for an Alternative is Not Enough to Teach Away

In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., [2016-1755] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 on a system whereby a user can identify a supplier of...more

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2017

“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more

What Petitioners and Patent Owners Need to Know About the Scope of IPR Estoppel

Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently identified a logical fallacy in the “statutory estoppel” jurisprudence with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). According to the...more

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands to PTAB Because of Insufficient Analysis of Obviousness in IPR

In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more

“Visually Negligible” Is Not Indefinite

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that the claim term “visually negligible” was indefinite because the specification provided examples of visually negligible indicators,...more

Stating Problems that the Claimed Invention is Trying to Solve Appears helpful to Vindicate Patent Eligibility

In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al., [2016-1616] (January 18, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court’s holding of patent eligibility with regard to...more

Hindsight Cannot be the Thread that Stitches the Prior Art Patches into the Claimed Invention

In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

Just Because One Could Doesn’t Mean One Would

In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., [2016-1174] (February 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s claim construction but vacated the Board’s obviousness determination because the Board did not...more

Federal Circuit Again Reverses PTAB Obviousness Determination

In what is becoming a familiar basis for reversal of PTAB decisions, the Federal Circuit yet again reversed the PTAB for its failure to adequately explain the basis for combining multiple prior art references in support of...more

The Removal of Matter from the Provisional Application is Significant to the Interpretation of the Claims in the Non-Provisional...

In MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC. v. Ricoh Americas Corp., [2016-1243] (February 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173 were invalid on the grounds of...more

You’re So Vague: Federal Circuit Sends IPR Decision Back to PTAB for More Thorough Analysis

In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal’s Board (PTAB) is required to explicitly state motivations to combine prior-art references in claim rejections for obviousness. ...more

Court Rejects Theory Of Derivation Based On FDA Requirement

The Federal Circuit decision in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC may be more interesting for what Mylan argued than for what the Federal Circuit decided. However, it could be an important decision...more

In re Schweickert (Fed. Cir. 2017)

USPTO's Conclusion of Obviousness Rendered Primary Reference Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose - In a nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the Board and remanded the case on appeal from...more

Inherent Anticipation for Biotechnology Inventions

Anticipation by inherent disclosure requires that a single prior art reference necessarily includes the unstated limitation. The unpredictable nature of biological processes means that winning summary judgment of invalidity...more

IPR Estoppel Narrowed Even Further in D. Delaware Ruling

Despite the astounding success for patent challengers to date in IPR proceedings, are you one who has been worried about the effects of the IPR estoppel in future litigation? Has this concern dissuaded you from considering...more

Unreasonable Claim Construction Causes PTAB Reversal

In a fairly case-specific claim construction analysis, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB recently in D’Agostino v. Mastercard, Int’l, 2016-1592, -1593 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016), finding that the Board erred in determining...more

Invention Must Inevitably Result to be Anticipated by Inherency

In U.S. Water Services, Inc., v. Novozymes A/S, [2015-1950, 2015-1967] (December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of anticipation and affirmed the denial of summary judgment of no inequitable conduct....more

PTAB Obviousness Decision Must Provide “Reasoned Explanation” For Motivation To Combine References

In a recent pair of decisions, the Federal Circuit has tightened the procedural and substantive requirements for Board decisions on obviousness. In Nuvasive, the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB final decision that challenged...more

101 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×