Prior Art

News & Analysis as of

Patent Appeals Board Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review of Medline Industries Patent

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied a petition by C.R. Bard, Inc. requesting inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,488,786, entitled “Catheter Tray, Packaging System, Instruction Insert, and...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Prior Art in Obviousness Analysis

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit in Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ, Inc. clarified the standard by which a reference may be considered prior art for the purposes of an obviousness determination. See No. 2015-1155, Slip. Op....more

If the Slipper Fits . . .

In High Point Design LLC v. Meijer, Inc., [2014-1464], the Federal Circuit in a non-precedential, but still instructive decision, reversed summary judgment of anticipation but affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of...more

The Federal Circuit Reviews Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions on Inter Partes Review

There are now three decisions of the Federal Circuit on appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on inter partes reviews: - In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC - Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC and -...more

Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc.

Case Name: Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2014-1799, -1800, 2015-1061, -1062, -1120, -1121, -1141, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8374 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2015) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Hughes...more

Doubling Down on Idle Free

In Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (July 15, 2015), the Board instructed that patent owners seeking to amend their applications should still follow all of the requirements set forth in Idle Free...more

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

Endo Pharma Patent Survives IPR Trial

Amneal Pharmaceuticals came up short in its bid to knock out numerous claims of Endo Pharmaceuticals’ US Patent No. 8,329,216 in a Final Written Decision issued on July 22, 2015, Amneal Pharm., LLC v. Endo Pharm. Inc.,...more

PTAB Issues Representative Order Clarifying Motion to Amend Analysis in Idle Free Systems

Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) added a recent order to its list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices. See MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015). ...more

Attacking Patents on Written Description & Enablement Grounds in Inter Partes Review

Although Inter Partes Review (IPR) is limited to grounds of unpatentability based upon prior art references, it is nevertheless possible to raise issues of written description or enablement by applying intervening prior art...more

PTAB Highlights Motion to Amend Decision

Another day, another key decision from the PTAB. This time, the Board has highlighted a Motion to Amend opinion entered in MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD, Inc., IPR2015-00040, decided by six Administrative Patent...more

Simultaneous Invention as Secondary Evidence of Obviousness

I do not usually write about non-precedential Federal Circuit decisions, but I could not let the discussion of “simultaneous invention” in Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., go without comment. As if protecting patents...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...more

Faster Is Not Always Better: Dangers of Quickly Filed Patent Applications

The United States switched to a “first-inventor-to-file” patent system in 2013. Ever since, articles and client alerts have stressed the importance of filing your patent applications as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the...more

Contract Manufacturing Makes Angiomax Patents Invalid Under On Sale Bar

In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a transaction with a contract manufacturer gave rise to an on sale bar that invalidated The Medicines Company’s Angiomax® patents. Are the facts of this...more

Allergan Fights Back, Files Complaint Against Venture Fund That Filed IPR Petition

Last month, Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Sales, LLC filed suit against Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC and Kevin Barnes ("FFC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that FFC attempted to extort...more

9 Key Factors That Impact Patent Valuations

Figuring out what a patent is worth can often feel like black magic. But, doing so can be critical during an IP due diligence or when trying to assess the value of a company built around the intellectual property. In...more

Federal Circuit Allows Judicial Review of PTAB's Determination That Patent Qualifies as "Covered Business Method"

On July 9, 2015, a divided Federal Circuit held in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 14-1194, that it can review Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determinations that a patent is a "covered business...more

Federal Circuit Allows Judicial Review of PTAB's Determination That Patent Qualifies as "Covered Business Method"

On July 9, 2015, a divided Federal Circuit held in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 14-1194, that it can review Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determinations that a patent is a "covered business...more

Federal Circuit Finds CBM Eligibility Reviewable on Appeal

The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a precedential opinion in Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015), finding the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to...more

Substantially the Same Prior Art - Square Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.; Actifio Inc. v. Delphix Corp.;

Addressing the issue of what constitutes the “same or substantially the same” prior art or arguments, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) chose not to exercise its discretion to deny two separate covered...more

Submission of Supplemental Evidence in an IPR May Be Submitted After the Due Date - International Business Machines Corp. v....

Addressing the circumstances for submitting supplemental evidence in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) allowed the petitioner to submit a responsive declaration after the due date...more

Decision to Expand Panels Resides with PTAB, Not Parties - Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. Procter & Gamble

In two recent decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the Board denied petitioner requests for rehearing by an expanded panel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. Procter & Gamble,...more

Recent Case Law, PTAB Decisions Provide Clarity on Exceptions to "Could-Have-Raised" Estoppel

35 USC §315(e)(2) prohibits a petitioner (or real party in interest or privy of the petitioner) in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of a patent claim from asserting in district court litigation that "the claim is invalid on any...more

Board Disqualifies Reference As Not Meeting Requirements of 102(e)

We are reminded once again, by the Board’s decision denying review in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00914, that 102(b) art is better than 102(e) art. In Cisco, Petitioner relied on a reference...more

284 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 12

"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*

*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.
×