News & Analysis as of

Prior Art

Kyle Bass Ends with a Bang: Success in Final PTAB Decision

by Fish & Richardson on

On June 7, 2017, Kyle Bass received his last final written decision in a long list of PTAB decisions rendered over the past two years as Kyle Bass sought to invalidate pharma patents. U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010 (the “’010...more

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of...more

PTAB Denies Timely, Relevant Supplement to Petition

by Jones Day on

By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...more

General Statements in Petition and Institution Decision Did Not Give Patent Owner Fair Notice of the Grounds of Invalidity in the...

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., [2016-1984] (June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1–2, 4–14, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 were obvious, and...more

In Fight Over Recombinant Blood Clotting Factor, PTAB Denies Motion to Submit Supplemental Information

In a case that highlights the importance for petitioners to conduct a thorough prior art search and to anticipate patent owner’s arguments, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. §...more

Pumping Up Exceptional Cases Under the Octane Fitness Standard

A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more

District Court Adopts Narrow Reading of Shaw and Finds that IPR Estoppel Applies to Manuals for Prior Art Products

Last year, the Federal Circuit in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc. articulated that a petitioner is not estopped from relying on a ground on which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined...more

Federal Circuit Concludes Differently on Two Exceptional Case Actions

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On June 5, 2017, the Federal Circuit arrived at two different conclusions concerning whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, reversing the district court in both cases. The two cases are Checkpoint Sys., Inc.,...more

Recent PTAB Decision Highlights Importance of Secondary Considerations in Obviousness Challenges

Obviousness challenges are popular post-grant challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Generally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (“§ 103”), the courts make legal and factual inquiries into (1) the scope and content...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Affirms Different Invalidity Results at PTAB and District Court - In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-1678, 2016-1679, the Federal Circuit held that prior judicial opinions...more

Cover All Your Bases in ITC Discovery

by Jones Day on

Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (May 31, 2017), is a good lesson in covering all your bases. Relying on a non-infringement decision by ALJ Pender, respondents assumed that they did...more

Denial of Attorneys’ Fees Reversed because District Court Conflated Rule and 35 USC 285

In Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc., [2016-2521] (June 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the determination that Appellee Rothschild Connected Devices...more

PTAB Denies Apple's Motion to Withdraw IPR Petition and Motion for Joinder

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,...more

Patent Grace Period Laws in the IP5 Patent Offices: Some Similarities But Largely Different

Life science and other high technology companies most frequently file patent applications in five IP offices (IP5), namely: the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japanese...more

District Court Ruling on Obviousness Does Not Bind PTAB

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of motivation to combine and whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is bound by district court decisions of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB is not...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (through February 1, 2017)

Although post-grant challenges of design patents have consistently made up a small percentage of the total number of patent challenges, these numbers have steadily increased to their highest level in 2017. The statistics...more

Court Clarifies Meaning of “Ground for Invalidity” for Purposes of Post-IPR Estoppel

A district court judge recently addressed the scope of estoppel for a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Specifically, the court clarified the meaning of a “ground for invalidity” as it relates to the estoppel effect...more

Why Design Patents Are Surviving Post-Grant Challenges

As of January 2017, the institution rate for Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials involving design patents was 37 percent. That is significantly lower than every other technology area and makes design patents the only...more

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate...

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient...more

Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References

by Knobbe Martens on

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Biscotti, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015, DI 191 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) that Microsoft should be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that...more

Secondary Considerations Carry The Day

by Jones Day on

We have previously reported (on February 1, on March 1, and on March 30) how patent owners have seen a mixed bag of results in trying to convince PTAB panels that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were sufficient to...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

by Knobbe Martens on

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

PTAB Finds Abbvie’s Humira Patent Unpatentable

by Goodwin on

The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00172, filed by Coherus, finding Abbvie’s U.S. Patent 8,889,135 unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. The ‘135 patent is directed to methods of treating rheumatoid...more

New Fed Circuit decision bolsters on-sale bar

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Patent litigators will tell you that there are many ways to invalidate a patent. One of their favorites is a self-inflicted ground of invalidity known as the “on-sale bar.” Under patent law, if you sell (or offer to sell)...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more

722 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
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.