Prior Art Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

Non-Analogous Art Is Not Prior Art for Purposes of Obviousness - Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and restored the jury’s verdict finding the patents-at-issue not invalid, because the prior art in dispute was...more

IP Newsflash - August 2015 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its...more

Federal Circuit Review | August 2015

Online Banking Patents Based On “Abstract Ideas” Held Patent Ineligible Under Alice - In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Appeal No. 2014-1506, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to...more

PTAB Denies Inter Partes Review Petitions Against Two Acorda Patents

One of the statistics gleaned from Director Michelle Lee's recent blog on the post-issuance review provisions of the America Invents Act is that only 42% of inter partes review petitions have been granted over the past three...more

Lessons Learned From the 1st Successful Pharmaceutical IPR Defense of Orange Book Listed Patents

In three petitions filed on the same day in 2013, styled Amneal v. Supernus, Amneal filed what appears to be the first challenge of Orange Book listed pharmaceutical patents that led to institution followed by a final...more

The Value Of Prophetic Examples

In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops against obviousness, written...more

Lumigan Patents Upheld by Unexpected Results

In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops. This decision shows that it is still...more

PTAB Institutes Very First Post-Grant Review (PGR) - American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle of Colorado, LLC

Representing the first decision of its kind, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) instituted the first post-grant review (PGR) under the American Invents Act (AIA). American Simmental Association v. Leachman...more

Federal Circuit Provides Plain Language Test for Analogous Art

Whether or not a prior art reference constitutes “analogous art” for purposes of an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been the subject of debate in many instances. On July 28, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Circuit...more

Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2015)

One of the first IPR petitions ever filed, IPR2012-0006, was related to biotechnology -- specifically DNA sequencing. Illumina, Inc. filed that petition, and two others, IPR2012-00007 and IPR2013-00011, against patents owned...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

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

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

Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB

There is little debate that inter partes reviews have proven to be an effective means of challenging the validity of a patent. During the first two-and-a-half years, more than 73 percent of claims originally challenged in IPR...more

PTAB Denies 2Wire IPR Petitions

TQ Delta LLC sued Pace Americas, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in November 2013. TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., Case no. 1:13-cv-01835-RGA. The complaint was amended to...more

When You Don’t Know What You Know: The Role of Unappreciated Inherency in the Obviousness Analysis

The patent statute makes it clear that subject matter that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of a patent application is not patentable.[1] The considerations relevant...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2015

Overly Narrow Statement Of Problem Can Show Reliance On Hindsight - In INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1065, the Federal Circuit held that enunciating an overly narrow statement of the problem...more

Nearly Expired Is Not the Same as Expired: The Board Clarifies Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review - Apple, Inc....

Addressing the standard to be applied for claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to create an...more

Anticipation Found Even Where the Prior Art Did Not Disclose Limitations Arranged the Same Way as in the Claim - Kennametal, Inc....

Applying the substantial evidence standard to support an invalidity determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision with...more

Cooling Off Defendant’s Obviousness Case

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order Entering Judgment for Plaintiff, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST (Judge Jon S. Tigar) - Questions of obviousness can present some of the most...more

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6936 (FSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26207 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015) (Hochberg, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Atelvia® (risedronate /...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

Toward a Bullet-Proof Petition – Motivation to Combine

While 8 out of 10 Petitions seeking inter partes review are granted by the PTAB, there remain several key errors that unsuccessful Petitioners make. Among them is the failure to provide sufficient factual basis for a...more

Prior Art Must Criticize or Otherwise Disparage the Claimed Solution to Constitute a Teaching Away - PNY Techs., Inc., v. Phison...

Addressing the question of whether claims covering a particular type of USB plug would have been obvious, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found the claims to be unpatentable, concluding that while one...more

79 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

"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.
×