Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

Prior Art References Introduced After IPR Institution Are Permissible to Show State of Art

Addressing issues related to introducing additional prior art references after institution of an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or...more

Intendis GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA

Case Name: Intendis GMBH et al. v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 822 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016) (Circuit Judges Prost, Moore, and Taranto presiding; Opinion by Moore, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Robinson, J.) - Drug...more

Intellectual Property in Medicine: Initial Considerations

Physicians are well-positioned to generate new inventions and thereby improve the treatment of their patients. As a result, physicians have historically been some of the best and most active inventors in the United States. ...more

HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc. (PTAB 2016) - Business Method Patent Not Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101

HP Inc. and SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method (CBM) patent review of claims 15 and 20–34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 owned by Big Baboon, Inc. The PTAB, however, determined that the...more

CAFC Dissects Alice Patent Eligibility Analysis in Bascom Global Internet Services

This case arose on an appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with the district court finding the asserted claims of Bascom’s U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606 were invalid as a matter of law under...more

Evidence Alley: Lightweight Fabric: Admissibility versus Weight at the PTAB

Many parties in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) struggle with the handling of evidentiary issues. This struggle is heightened when expert evidence is the focus. In Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision...more

Interpreting Utility Patent Claims

Utility patents constitute about 90% of the patents in the United States. Design patents and plant patents, which are not discussed here, comprise the other 10%. Utility patents protect the functional aspects of a machine,...more

PTAB Provides Procedural Guidance, Designates Five Opinions as Precedential

On May 10, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) designated five post-grant trial decisions as precedential, bring the total number of precedential decisions in inter partes review (IPR) and covered business...more

BASCOM—Federal Circuit Holds Internet Content Filtering Patent Passes Alice Test

In a Section 101 analysis under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., “[a]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”—even if individual claim...more

PTAB Grants Late Motion to Amend, But Amended Claims Fail to Breathe Life into Patent

Addressing the standards for a motion to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted a motion to amend the claims in an IPR, but ultimately denied...more

No Approval for Generic Product for Treatment of Rosacea **WEB ONLY**

Addressing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and obviousness issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling barring approval of a generic version of Finacea® gel...more

Bascom v. AT&T — Patent Eligibility Meet Patentability

…..Or Judge Newman proposes a blended approach when “Abstract Idea” or “Inventive Concept” is at issue. In Bascom v. AT&T, Appeal no. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016, Fed. Cir.), panel of Judges Newman, O’Malley and Chen reversed...more

When Distinguishing Statements May Be Considered Disclaimers of Claim Scope

Addressing disclaimer of claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the patentee clearly and unmistakably disclaimed...more

PTAB Can Rely Upon Prior Art Not Cited in an IPR Institution Decision to Establish the State of Art

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final determination in Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited Partnership v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., Nos. 2015-1720, 2015-1721 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016), holding that the PTAB did...more

Federal Circuit Distinguishes “Motivation to Combine” from “Expectation of Success” for Obviousness Purposes

Addressing issues of obviousness and the proper scope of inter partes review (IPR) reply briefs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) IPR decision finding the...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2016

The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more

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

How the PTAB Treats Pre-Institution Factual Disputes

As a result of recent changes in the PTAB rules of practice, counsel for patent owners should consider whether there are opportunities to identify factual deficiencies in petitions. Counsel for petitioners in inter partes...more

Computer Generated Prior Art

An old adage states that an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time will surely produce Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In a similar vein, the web site All Prior Art seeks to use computers and algorithms to...more

USPTO Releases Update on Patent Eligibility Decision in Light of Enfish

On May 19, the USPTO released an update to patent examiners regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) recent decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive,...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

A Combination of References Can be Obvious Even if it Requires a Bit of Work

In Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, [2015-1533] (June 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-001006 that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489, were obvious. Allied first...more

Board Not Limited to Prior Art in the Grounds, as Long as Patent Owner Had Notice

In Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., [2015-1720, 2015-1721](June 14, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR2013-00534 and IPR2013-00537 that certain claims of ...more

The Introduction of New Evidence Is Permitted During IPR Proceedings

On June 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that the introduction of new evidence is not only permitted, but “is to be expected,” in inter partes review proceedings. As long as the opposing party is...more

507 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 21
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.
×