Prior Art Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

PTAB Upholds Lialda Patent Over Kyle Bass IPR Challenge

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a final written decision upholding Shire’s Lialda® patent over the Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge brought by Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs. The...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Accused Infringer Puts the Screws on Patentee

We wrote recently about a summary judgment decision in which Judge Indira Talwani found certain asserted claims of two patents on a type of breakable screw to be obvious in light of the prior art. This ruling came even though...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more

Generalized Common Sense Allegations Cannot Be Used to Supply Important Missing Claim Limitation

Addressing the use of common sense for an obviousness analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that conclusory statements about common sense cannot be used to supply missing claim limitations that play a...more

It was Error Not to Consider Secondary Considerations, But They Wouldn’t Have Made a Difference

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., [2015-1853] (September 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision affirming an Examiner’s rejection of claims to a call-screening system that verbally announces a caller’s...more

Four Years of IPRs: Lessons from Proceedings for the Cabilly II Patent

It has been four years since the first inter partes review proceedings were filed in the United States. The first IPR petition, filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day IPRs became available), made it all the way to the...more

Federal Circuit: Go whole-hog on validity below if you want to contest an independent determination of invalidity on appeal

Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v....more

Common Sense Is Not So Common-ly Obvious

Almost a decade has elapsed since the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. altered the law of patent obviousness. In reversing the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Court in KSR limited the...more

Prevailing Party Before PTAB May Not Appeal

Addressing the right of a prevailing party to appeal a favorable decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a case from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) and ruled that...more

Genzyme Petitions Federal Circuit for Rehearing in Genzyme Therapeutic Products, Inc. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Many of the complaints from patent holders over the PTO's inter partes review process under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (codified in pertinent part at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319) stem from how the Office has implemented...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Tygacil Formulation Patent

In Apotex, Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that Apotex had failed to show that claims directed to a specific formulation of tigecycline...more

Ariosa Loses Verinata Patent Challenge

Fetal diagnostic pioneer Ariosa Diagnostics lost its latest attempt to invalidate competitor Verinata Health’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430, “Methods of Fetal Abnormality Detection.” The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and...

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc. – Defining “Common Sense”

For some time, I have wanted to do a post on this recent Fed. Cir. decision (Appeal No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. , August 10, 2016),) in which the Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Moore, Linn and O’Malley (writing) reversed a PTAB...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2016

ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. (No. 2015-1565, 8/15/16) (Moore, Taranto, Hughes) - August 15, 2016 10:41 AM - Moore, J. Reversing summary judgment of invalidity of claims for lack of written...more

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Use of Common Sense in Obviousness Analysis

Last week, in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of invalidity in an inter partes review that relied on “common sense” to supply a claim limitation that was...more

PTAB Reversed–Common Sense Improperly Used to Supply Missing Limitation in Obviousness Inquiry

In a rare rebuke of the PTAB’s discretion, the Federal Circuit has outright reversed a finding of obviousness based on the Board’s misapplication of the law on the permissible use of “common sense” in an obviousness analysis....more

Magnum Offers New Path for Challenging AIA Decisions: Burden of Production

On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held in In re Magnum Oil Tools International (Newman, O’Malley & Chen) that the burden of production to show unobviousness does not shift to a patent owner...more

HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc. (PTAB 2016) - Business Method Patent Not Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101

HP Inc. and SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method (CBM) patent review of claims 15 and 20–34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 owned by Big Baboon, Inc. The PTAB, however, determined that the...more

No Approval for Generic Product for Treatment of Rosacea **WEB ONLY**

Addressing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and obviousness issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling barring approval of a generic version of Finacea® gel...more

Federal Circuit Distinguishes “Motivation to Combine” from “Expectation of Success” for Obviousness Purposes

Addressing issues of obviousness and the proper scope of inter partes review (IPR) reply briefs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) IPR decision finding the...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2016

The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more

A Combination of References Can be Obvious Even if it Requires a Bit of Work

In Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, [2015-1533] (June 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-001006 that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489, were obvious. Allied first...more

Board Not Limited to Prior Art in the Grounds, as Long as Patent Owner Had Notice

In Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., [2015-1720, 2015-1721](June 14, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR2013-00534 and IPR2013-00537 that certain claims of ...more

147 Results
View per page
Page: of 6
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.