News & Analysis as of

Prior Art

PTAB Weighs Five Factors in Discretionary Denial of Xactware’s Second IPR Petition

The PTAB weighed five factors in its discretionary denial of a second IPR petition filed by the same petitioner in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Tech., Inc., IPR2017-00034, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. April 13, 2017)....more

Rules and Practice Tips Regarding Official Notice at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

What is Official Notice? - MPEP §2103(VI) states that when a rejection is imposed, the “Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them.” Examiners commonly satisfy this...more

Pharmaceutical Compound Nonobvious Absent Evidence Suggesting Specific Modification to Prior Art Compound

by Jones Day on

The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2016-00204, upholding the validity of claims 1–13 of Patent RE38,551 E (“the ’551 patent”), which covers the antiepileptic drug VIMPAT® (lacosamide)....more

Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Can a prior art reference that does not contain a teaching sufficient enough to allow it to be used in an obviousness combination nevertheless be used as a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine? ...more

Federal Circuit Reverses-in-Part PTAB’s IPR Decisions for Wasica’s Tire Pressure Monitoring Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more

PTAB Denies Institution of Petitioner’s Second IPR Based on Newly Cited Prior Art Because Petitioner Knew of the Prior Art Before...

On March 20, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of patent claims that were also the subject of a previously filed IPR by the same petitioner (IBM). IBM...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness of Novartis’s Patent for Multiple Sclerosis Drug

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to Novartis’s multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya were obvious in Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Ltd., No. 2016-1352 (Fed. Cir....more

Just Because the Board Didn’t Say It, Doesn’t Mean that the Board Didn’t Think It

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2016-1352] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283, and Novartis’ proposed substitute...more

Evidence of Priority to Provisional Application and that Prior Art Was Not Work of Another Defeated Obviousness Challenge in IPR

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims, Kind Of

by Jones Day on

In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLC, IPR2015-02009 (March 31, 2017), the PTAB granted Shire’s Motion to Amend the claims in U.S. Reissued Patent RE 42,096, listed in the FDA’s Orange Book as covering Shire’s...more

IPR Tracker: IPR2016-00258 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,051,556) (Green Cross Corp.) – Final Written Decision

by Goodwin on

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00258, wherein Petitioner Green Cross Corp. challenged claims 1-3, 16, and 17 of Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,556. Green Cross, which is...more

Dependent Claims Were Anticipated While Independent Claims Were Not

In Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v IPS Group, Inc., [IPR2016-00067] (March 27, 2017) the PTAB found that claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,854,310 were anticipated under 102(e), while claims 1–5, 7, and 9 — including...more

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the...more

PTAB Considers What Constitutes “By Another” Under § 102(e) in Determining Whether Challenged Claims are Unpatentable

In a final written decision in Duncan Parking Tech., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., IPR2016-00067, Paper 29 (P.TA.B. Mar. 27, 2017), the PTAB evaluated whether a prior art reference alleged to anticipate the challenged patent under...more

Prior Art that Must be Distorted from its Obvious Design Does Not Anticipate

In In re Chudik, [2016-1817] (March 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that claims 1, 15, 18, and 33–40 of U.S. Patent Application 11/525,631 on an implant for shoulder replacement surgery were...more

In Rare Final Written Decision for “Anti-Troll” Group, Lack of Expert Declaration Dooms Patent

Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of US Pat. No. 8,640,183 owned by Convergent Media Solutions, LLC. Unified’s numerous inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions rarely reach a final...more

Insufficient Showing of Public Availability of Prior Art and Strong, Unrebutted Evidence of Commercial Success Defeats IPR...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC (“Coalition” or “Petitioner”) failed to demonstrate that claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent...more

Vague Claim Construction Arguments Before The PTAB May Trigger A Waiver On Appeal

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 (“the ‘154 patent”), owned by SimpleAir, Inc. (“SimpleAir”) in an inter partes review petition filed by Google. Google Inc. v....more

Oversimplifying Patent Claims Dooms Government’s Case in Federal Circuit Decision

Defendants in patent litigation frequently mount an invalidity defense under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by arguing that asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas, which are not eligible for patent protection under the first step of...more

ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco IPR Petitions

ChanBond sued several cable company defendants alleging patent infringement of three wideband signal distribution system patents in the District of Delaware in 2015. The defendants included Atlantic Broadband Group, Bright...more

Incorporation by Reference Used to Arrive at BRI Claim Construction

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Resolving what was primarily a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction issue, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that invalidated claims...more

PTAB Finds Draft Technical Specifications Constitute Printed Publications

On March 16, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its final written decision in the LG Electronics v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. matter. Core Wireless, the “Patent Owner,” challenged prior art...more

Factual Findings Required to Show “Apparent Reason to Combine”

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness and anticipation in the context of an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions with respect to the same patent, vacating and remanding the...more

Patentee’s Teaching Away Argument Fails to Overcome Substantial Evidence of Unpatentability

An obviousness challenge can be overcome by showing the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention. However, “teaching away” is a question of fact and thus subject to the substantial evidence standard in appeals from...more

669 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 27
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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!