Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

Patent Owner Must Show Patentability Over Art of Record to Amend Claims in IPR

In In re Aqua Products, Inc., [2015-1177] (May 25, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s denial of the patent owner’s motion to amend in IPR2013-00159. The Federal Circuit made quick work of the PTAB’s placing...more

PTAB Reversed for Failing to Explain “Why” a Person of Skill Would Modify the Prior Art

It is no secret that patent owners have, on average, struggled at the PTAB over the last three and a half years. Some practitioners say that a reason for this result is that the Board many times takes an aggressive approach...more

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Have you ever mixed up the obviousness determinations of "motivation to combine" and "reasonable expectation of success"? If so, you are apparently not alone -- the Federal Circuit recently faulted the Patent Trial and...more

CAFC Affirms Finacea Gel Infringement Under Doctrine of Equivalents

In Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This case shows that the doctrine of equivalents...more

PTAB Institutes IPR on Humira Patent

As we previously reported, the PTAB instituted IPR on U.S. Patent 8,889,135, which is drawn to a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) with Humira®, a TNFa-inhibitor. Claim 1 is directed to “A method for treating...more

IPR Motions to Amend: Rays of Hope Despite Gloomy Statistics

The America Invents Act permits patent owners to move to amend claims of a patent subject to inter partes review. However, attempts to amend claims have been largely unsuccessful to date, and some of the hurdles patent owners...more

PTAB Discretion Under 325(d) in Post-Grant Proceedings

The PTAB has interpreted the statutes and rules as giving it broad discretion as to whether to institute inter partes review. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB may reject a petition because “the same or substantially the...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion of IPR Reply that Raised New Grounds of Invalidity

In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v, Illumina Cambridge Ltd., [2015-1693] (May 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written decision that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,537, directed to a...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

Discovery Dispute Regarding Key Word Searches Is Granted In Part And Denied In Part

Plaintiff requests that defendant search its database for documents containing the following terms: charge sharing, power race, contention, and short circuits and their synonyms. Plaintiff justifies this discovery on the...more

Prior Art and Continuation-in-Part Claims

What are the dates to which prior art must adhere, in examination of claims in a continuation-in-part (CIP) nonprovisional patent application? Each claim in a CIP, whether independent or dependent, has its own priority date....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

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Claim Amendments in Post-Grant Patent Challenges

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has used a “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard for claim interpretation when examining pending patent applications. Under the BRI standard, a claim term is...more

A Non-illusory Opportunity to Amend

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") recently granted a motion to amend. A successful motion to amend is rare; only six have been granted to date. The case is Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger...more

It’s Not the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, but the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Light of the Specification

In In re Man Machine Interface Tech. LLC, [2015-1562] (April 19, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the PTAB’s affirmance of the rejection of claims of U.S. Patent No....more

Petitioners that Rely on Deposition Testimony to Establish that a Publication Qualifies as Prior Art should be Prepared to Produce...

Routine discovery in review proceedings authorizes cross examination of affidavit testimony. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). If a petitioner submits affidavit testimony to prove that a publication qualifies as prior art, the...more

Strategic Considerations of Estoppel for IPRs After Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...more

PTAB Denies IPR Petitions against Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Patents

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is a storied institution in molecular biology, being the site of annual meetings related to this view of life since Schrodinger proposed to use quantitative methods to examine biology in...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

Summary Judgment and Daubert motions are decided

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity under sections 101, 102(b), and 103 are denied; defendant’s motion barring pre-suit damages based on laches is denied; defendant’s motion for summary...more

What "Reasonably" Could Have Been Raised in an Inter Partes Review?

Since their introduction, inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings have had a close association with district court litigation. Indeed, litigation defendants are often the petitioners who initiate IPR proceedings. Therefore,...more

BRI Should Not Depart from What the Claim Language and Specification so Clearly Mean

In Pride Mobility Products Corporation v, Permobil, Inc., [2015-1585, -1586] (April 5, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s construction and cancellation of claim 7, but affirmed cancellation of all the other claims...more

Federal Circuit Recognizes an Exception to Inter Partes Review Estoppel Provisions

On March 23, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision endorsing an exception to the estoppel provisions for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C § 315(e). Shaw Industry Group, Inc. v. Automated...more

Unenforceability Due to Client Failure to Correct Counsel’s Misrepresentations to PTO - The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps...

In the ongoing saga between two manufacturers of liners for prosthetic limbs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a finding of inequitable conduct committed by the patent owner while the patent at issue...more

Second Time Is The Charm For Kyle Bass Challenges Of Ampyra Patents

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has decided to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against the Ampyra patents based on the second set of petitions filed by Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable...more

473 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 19
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.
×