Patents Prior Art Appeals

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Review | August 2015

Online Banking Patents Based On “Abstract Ideas” Held Patent Ineligible Under Alice - In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Appeal No. 2014-1506, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to...more

Federal Circuit Provides Plain Language Test for Analogous Art

Whether or not a prior art reference constitutes “analogous art” for purposes of an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been the subject of debate in many instances. On July 28, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Circuit...more

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Claim Construction Cannot Be Unreasonable - Microsoft Corp., v. Proxyconn, Inc.

Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has the authority to use the broadest reasonable interpretation claim...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Prior Art in Obviousness Analysis

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit in Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ, Inc. clarified the standard by which a reference may be considered prior art for the purposes of an obviousness determination. See No. 2015-1155, Slip. Op....more

The Federal Circuit Reviews Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions on Inter Partes Review

There are now three decisions of the Federal Circuit on appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on inter partes reviews: - In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC - Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC and -...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...more

Federal Circuit Finds CBM Eligibility Reviewable on Appeal

The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a precedential opinion in Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015), finding the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2015

Overly Narrow Statement Of Problem Can Show Reliance On Hindsight - In INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1065, the Federal Circuit held that enunciating an overly narrow statement of the problem...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Apple v. Samsung: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Design Patent Principles Law

In a much anticipated opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Samsung on May 18, the design patent law with respect to remedies and the infringement test remains robust. Notably, and...more

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #2

SUPREME COURT CASES - U.S. Supreme Court Remands Case to Federal Circuit to Review Patent Under Teva - On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case back to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal...more

Anticipation Found Even Where the Prior Art Did Not Disclose Limitations Arranged the Same Way as in the Claim - Kennametal, Inc....

Applying the substantial evidence standard to support an invalidity determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision with...more

Recent IPR Guidance From a Trio of Forums

As inter partes review (IPR) practice continues to develop and practitioners feel their way around the edges, the last month brought helpful guidance from a trio of forums: the Federal Circuit, the Central District of...more

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

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

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 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

Practitioner Guilty of Inequitable Conduct: Considerations and Takeaways From the American Calcar v. Honda Decision

In its 2011 Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co. decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a more forgiving "but-for" causality standard for determining whether a patent is unenforceable due to...more

“Soda-Pop” Bottle Caps Can Be Analogous Art for Flash Chromatography Cartridges

Scientific Plastic Products, Inc. v. Biotage AB - Addressing the issue of analogous art in the context of inter partes reexamination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S....more

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petitions by Different...

Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent. Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the Board had instituted trial on two of those three...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

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

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

30 Results
View per page
Page: of 2

"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.