Prior Art Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

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

The Introduction of New Evidence Is Permitted During IPR Proceedings

On June 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that the introduction of new evidence is not only permitted, but “is to be expected,” in inter partes review proceedings. As long as the opposing party is...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Decision Invalidating Genzyme Patents

On June 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a final decision in Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. v. Biomarin Pharms., No. 2015-1720 case affirming two PTAB IPR final decisions invalidating as obvious the claims of U.S. Patent Nos....more

PTAB Reversed for Failing to Explain “Why” a Person of Skill Would Modify the Prior Art

It is no secret that patent owners have, on average, struggled at the PTAB over the last three and a half years. Some practitioners say that a reason for this result is that the Board many times takes an aggressive approach...more

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Have you ever mixed up the obviousness determinations of "motivation to combine" and "reasonable expectation of success"? If so, you are apparently not alone -- the Federal Circuit recently faulted the Patent Trial and...more

PTAB Institutes IPR on Humira Patent

As we previously reported, the PTAB instituted IPR on U.S. Patent 8,889,135, which is drawn to a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) with Humira®, a TNFa-inhibitor. Claim 1 is directed to “A method for treating...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion of IPR Reply that Raised New Grounds of Invalidity

In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v, Illumina Cambridge Ltd., [2015-1693] (May 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written decision that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,537, directed to a...more

TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Early last month, the Federal Circuit addressed an important question regarding the interplay between a decision to institute inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the ultimate determination by the...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. Depomed, reviewing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on three related inter partes reviews. While not quite a...more

Sometimes the Application of a New Technology is Obvious from the New Technology itself

In In re Cree, [2015-1365] (March 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB in an ex parte reexamination that the claims directed to the production of white light through the “down-conversion” of blue...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2016

Under O2 Micro, a District Court Must Provide a Claim Construction if the Parties Dispute the Meaning of a Claim Term - In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1237, the Federal...more

IP Newsflash - March 2016

DISTRICT COURT CASES - New York Court Invalidates Targeted-Advertising Patents under Alice - A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted counterclaim-defendant TNS’s motion for summary judgment...more

PTAB Denies Lupin’s IPR in Win for Pozen – Claimed Tablet That Provided Coordinated Drug Release Not Suggested by Prior Art, Which...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently denied institution of a Lupin inter partes review against a Pozen patent covering VIMOVO® (naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets, commercially sold by Horizon...more

Method of Treatment Claims Cancelled in View of Prior Art under Theory of Obviousness, but Not Anticipation - Eli Lilly and Co. v....

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found all of Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute’s (LA-Bio Med) patent claims unpatentable on the basis of obviousness in view of a...more

Expected Toxicity of Claimed Immunoconjugates Thwarts Showing of Prima Facie Obviousness (Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,...

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) upheld the patentability of Phigenix’s patent claims that were challenged on the basis of obviousness. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2016

Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more

In Obviousness Analysis Loss of Benefit Is Not the Same as Inoperable (In re Urbanski)

Addressing “teaching away” arguments in the context of obviousness issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) obviousness decision, holding a person...more

Cutsforth Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc.

Back in January 2002, when this author was near the beginning of his patent law career, the Federal Circuit handed down the In re Sang-Su Lee case. Among other things, this case provided patent practitioners with support for...more

Making the Obvious Point: How Failing to Provide Motivation to Modify a Prior Art Reference Can Lose Your Case, Even When That...

To invalidate a patent as obvious, a prior art reference often must be modified to incorporate the teachings of another prior art reference. However, the Supreme Court has held that the obviousness analysis must include some...more

Losing Competing Property Not A Teaching Away

In In re Urbanski, the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of Urbanski’s patent application obvious. Urbanski had argued that the cited references taught...more

It is Obvious to Vary Result-Effective Variables

In In re Urbanski, [2015-1272] (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s affirmance of the rejection on obviousness grounds of claims to a method for making an enzymatic hydrolysate of a soy fiber. The...more

It Can Happen: PTAB Alters Final Written Decision on Rehearing - Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC

In a rare decision granting a petitioner’s rehearing request, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) reversed its earlier position in a final written decision where it found that the petitioner had not shown that...more

Directing a Known Treatment to a Sub-Population of Patients Is Obvious - Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

Addressing obviousness issues, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidity conclusion, agreeing that the elements present in the prior art—including earlier disclosed genus...more

Patent Owner Should Have Left “Good Enough” Alone - Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

Addressing issues of obviousness and procedural issues related to the use of declarations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

126 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.
×