News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art Appeals

Unexpected Results of an Obvious Process are Non-obvious

In Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., [2015-2066, 2016-1008, 2016-1009, 2016-1010, 2016-1109, 2016-1110, 2016-1283, 2016-1762] (July 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that...more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...more

“Catch-All” Phrases Insufficient To Give Proper Notice of Grounds for Petition

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit made clear that “catch-all” phrases in a Petition for IPR and/or a Board’s Institution Decision are insufficient to put a patent owner on...more

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

In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of...more

General Statements in Petition and Institution Decision Did Not Give Patent Owner Fair Notice of the Grounds of Invalidity in the...

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., [2016-1984] (June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1–2, 4–14, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 were obvious, and...more

Pumping Up Exceptional Cases Under the Octane Fitness Standard

A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more

District Court Adopts Narrow Reading of Shaw and Finds that IPR Estoppel Applies to Manuals for Prior Art Products

Last year, the Federal Circuit in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc. articulated that a petitioner is not estopped from relying on a ground on which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined...more

Federal Circuit Concludes Differently on Two Exceptional Case Actions

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On June 5, 2017, the Federal Circuit arrived at two different conclusions concerning whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, reversing the district court in both cases. The two cases are Checkpoint Sys., Inc.,...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Affirms Different Invalidity Results at PTAB and District Court - In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-1678, 2016-1679, the Federal Circuit held that prior judicial opinions...more

Denial of Attorneys’ Fees Reversed because District Court Conflated Rule and 35 USC 285

In Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc., [2016-2521] (June 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the determination that Appellee Rothschild Connected Devices...more

Court Clarifies Meaning of “Ground for Invalidity” for Purposes of Post-IPR Estoppel

A district court judge recently addressed the scope of estoppel for a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Specifically, the court clarified the meaning of a “ground for invalidity” as it relates to the estoppel effect...more

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate...

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient...more

New Fed Circuit decision bolsters on-sale bar

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Patent litigators will tell you that there are many ways to invalidate a patent. One of their favorites is a self-inflicted ground of invalidity known as the “on-sale bar.” Under patent law, if you sell (or offer to sell)...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more

District Court Precludes Defendant from Asserting Invalidity Grounds That It Raised or Could Have Reasonably Raised in IPR...

On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more

Federal Circuit Maintains Pre-AIA Interpretation of the On-Sale Bar for Public Sales

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

Are Secret Sales Prior Art Under The AIA?

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit found that a publicly-announced “Supply and Purchase” agreement triggered the on-sale bar under pre-AIA 35 USC § 102(b) and under AIA 35 USC §...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar under AIA

Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of...more

Federal Circuit Holds Objective Indicia Must Be Linked to Novel Features

by Jones Day on

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd. (2016-1352), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in consolidated IPR proceedings (IPR2014-00784, IPR2015-00518) invalidating all claims of U.S. Patent 8,324,283. In doing...more

A Sale is Still a Sale under the AIA

At least so far, the meaning of “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has not changed from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) following a decision by the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Board’s Understanding of Prior Art

The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by...more

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

To Teach Away, Prior Art Must Criticize, Discredit or Discourage the Invention

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness in the context of an asserted teaching away, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that the challenged claims were...more

136 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
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.