Patents Prior Art United States Patent and Trademark Office

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Holds that a Decision to Institute an IPR Proceeding Is Not Subject to Judicial Review and that the USPTO May Use...

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee which involved an appeal from the first decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from an Inter Partes Review...more

Same-Day Continuing Applications are Co-pending under s. 120

The outcome of this question of statutory construction was not really in doubt, given the fact that an adverse holding could invalidate thousands of patents which needed same-day copendency to avoid intervening prior art....more

“Unclean Hands” Doctrine Erases Merck’s Damage Award

In my last post on the district court’s ruling in Gilead v. Merck, I implied that Gilead had convinced the Judge that Merck had employed inequitable conduct (“IC”) in conducting its negotiations with Pharmasset, the company...more

Merck’s Solvaldi® Patents Unenforceable for Egregious Misconduct

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04057-BLE (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), Judge Beth Freeman, sitting in equity, found that the record compelled a finding that Merck and its employee “D” had obtained...more

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 14, Issue 2 (Spring 2016)

Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar - The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The...more

Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar

The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The America-Invents-Act (AIA), which altered the language in the statutes that apply to...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc.: Federal Circuit Continues To Uphold PTAB Limits on Motions To Amend

Although the America Invents Act permits patent owners to file motions to amend claims in a patent under review, see e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), patentees generally have been unsuccessful in seeking amendments. The USPTO has...more

Prior Art: When On Sale Is Not 'On Sale'

Pursuant to Section 102 of the Patent Act, the “on-sale” bar can invalidate a patent when the claimed invention has been the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale, and the invention is ready for patenting. Prior to...more

May 2016: Patent Litigation Update

District Court Rules Non-Public Sales or Offers for Sale No Longer Apply to the “On-Sale” Bar Under the AIA. The on-sale statutory bar is a limitation on patentability that prohibits an inventor from obtaining a patent, when...more

USPTO Issues Subject Matter Eligibility Update

On May 5, 2016, the USPTO published a Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps titled “Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection.” The...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2016

Federal Circuit Upholds Broad Scope of CBM Review and Explains that an Internet Reference Must be Indexed by a Search Engine to Qualify as a Prior Art Publication - In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Appeal Nos....more

Estoppel is Not Invoked Simply Because Prior Art is Cumulative

After an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is completed, validity and/or infringement of the patent may subsequently be determined by a U.S. district court. This situation...more

Federal Circuit Carves Out Exception to IPR Estoppel Provisions

The Federal Circuit recently held that petitioners will not be estopped from raising in subsequent proceedings any noninstituted grounds deemed “redundant” by the Board or otherwise denied without meritorious consideration....more

Federal Circuit Tosses PTAB Decision

The Federal Circuit vacates a decision by the PTAB for relying on facts raised for the first time at oral argument. Executive Summary - On March 15, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated...more

No Mention Of Damages Is Permitted During Liability Phase Of Trial

Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al., C.A. No. 14-1317 – SLR (Consolidated), March 2, 2016 - Robinson, J. Order resolving pre-trial evidentiary issues. Plaintiffs seek to preclude defendants from relying on two...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2016

Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more

Blog: Using Continuation Applications Strategically

Continuation applications are wonderful tools for increasing the size and scope of your patent portfolio. With some careful planning, you can use continuation applications to turn your experience with the patent office and...more

GUEST POST: David Lisch on the Basics of Intellectual Property Law for Start-Ups (Part 2-Patents)

A patent protects “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Unlike trademarks, which protect a brand name and recognition, a...more

Prior Art Enablement Looks to Applicant’s Specification to Determine Ordinary Level of Skill - In re Morsa

Addressing the issue of whether an anticipatory prior art reference was enabling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. Patent Trademark Office (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and...more

Preponderance Standard Applies to Ex Parte Re-examinations - Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee

Addressing the presumption of validity in ex parte re-examinations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that the presumption of validity does not apply to patents under reexamination in the U.S....more

Claim Amendments Are Not Always What They Seem - R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.

Addressing whether language added to a claim during ex parte re-examination resulted in substantive changes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the infringement claims,...more

URGENT: Change to Correction of Claims for Foreign Priority Dates

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) provides that the filing date of an earlier foreign patent application may now be the effective prior art date for subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent...more

Wertheim, Dynamic Drinkware and the AIA

In Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that in order for a patent to qualify as prior art as of its provisional application filing date, the provisional application must support the...more

Federal Circuit: Prior Disclosure Is Not Necessarily Prior Art - Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding that an IPR petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that a cited prior art U.S. patent reference...more

Morsa II: Admissions Enable Prior Art

In its 2013 decision in In re Morsa, the Federal Circuit vacated an anticipation rejection where “both the Board and the examiner failed to engage in a proper enablement analysis” to establish the enabling quality of the...more

99 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.
×