News & Analysis as of

Prior Art

Eastern District of Texas Judge Holds that Statements Made to PTAB Constitute Disclaimer

On September 9, 2017, an Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation holding that a plaintiff was estopped from asserting its patent infringement claims because statements made in response to...more

CAFC Finds Harmless Error in USPTO Reliance On Doctrine of Inherency

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more

Case Law Suggests Use Of Expert Opinion For Determining IPR Estoppel Of Grounds That Petitioner "Reasonably Could Have Raised"

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), a final written decision in an inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) results in estoppel of certain actions by the petitioner. Specifically, under 35 U.S.C. §...more

When Your Background Dooms The Invention

37 CFR 1.77(b)(7) suggests that a patent application should include a “Background of the Invention.” The Background of the Invention, however, can cause trouble if the drafter is not careful....more

PTAB Denies Untimely Request to Stay Pending Reexaminations

by Jones Day on

In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR...more

Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more

Mere Quantification of the Results of a Known Process is Not Patentable

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, [2016-2287] (September 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an Inter Partes reexamination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301 on a method of making cable...more

Follow-on IPR Petitions are Unfair to Patent Owners and an Inefficient Use of the Process

In General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, (September 6, 2017), and IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, and IPR2016-01361, an expanded panel of the PTAB denied...more

Secondary Considerations Win Again

by Jones Day on

As we have previously discussed (on February 1, March 1, March 30, and May 19), reliance on secondary considerations of non-obviousness has been hit or miss for patent owners trying to convince PTAB panels that the secondary...more

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

Intercontinental v. Kellogg involves a fight between two food industry powerhouses, Kraft and Kellogg, in which a majority of the panel affirms summary judgment of obviousness of a patent directed to a resealable cookie...more

8 Ways To Avoid Inter Partes Review Estoppel

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Inter partes review has become an enormously popular method of challenging patents. One important downside of filing for IPR, however, is that, if the petitioner loses, it faces an estoppel that could prevent it from raising...more

Patent Myths Corrected – Part Two

by Weintraub Tobin on

My last column was the first of two columns discussing some of the most common misconceptions or myths about patents. Here is the second part, starting with number five on my list. A Patent Does Not Give the Patent Owner...more

PTAB’s Consideration of Prior Art Needs a Tune Up

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where the PTAB had failed to consider a specific prior art combination and unpatentability argument advanced by the...more

Obviousness Does Not Require Absolute Predictability

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three inter partes re-examination decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating numerous claims in each of...more

PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

by Jones Day on

In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the Board denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the...more

[Webinar] Prior Art: Understanding and Attacking Prior Art Rejections - September 6, 10:00am ET

Join us for a compare and contrast discussion on what constitutes prior art in the United States and in Europe, and how to respond to rejections over that art. Relying on over sixty years combined prosecution experience...more

District Court Addresses IPR Estoppel of Nonpetitioned Grounds and Appoints Expert to Determine Whether Skilled Artisan Could Have...

In Oil-Dri Corporates of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, the court recently held that a defendant who has filed a parallel inter partes review (IPR) petition is estopped from raising invalidity grounds in the...more

3 Lessons from Federal Circuit Ruling on Computer Implemented Inventions

The fate of subject matter eligibility is far from certain today; however, there are a few application drafting takeaways from the Visual Memory case that can help in getting computer implemented inventions to allowance...more

Federal Circuit Finds Visual Memory's Patent Claims Directed to an Improved Computer

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On appeal of the district court’s dismissal of Visual Memory, LLC’s patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA Corporation, the Federal Circuit concluded that the patent claims are directed to an improved computer memory...more

Does Mayo Preclude the Patenting of Medical Diagnostics?

by Burns & Levinson LLP on

On August 4, 2017, the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts found U.S. patent 7267820 (the ‘820 patent), owned by Athena Diagnostics, Inc., to be directed to non-patentable subject matter, and therefore...more

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

The PTAB Reaches Same Determination After Remand Despite Having Construction and Analysis Set Aside

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR after the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. On remand, the PTAB reached the same...more

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

When considering the patent-eligibility of claims, size usually matters. Claims that are longer and recite more detailed inventions tend to be more likely to survive 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges than those that are shorter and...more

Issue Seven: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel Proceedings - In In re Certain Network Devices and Related Software and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-935, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) had issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and a cease...more

District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

by Jones Day on

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more

760 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 31
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.