News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Obviousness

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2017

by WilmerHale on

Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2015-2006, 7/17/17) (Newman, Mayer, O'Malley) - Newman, J.Reversing and vacating judgments of invalidity for obviousness in consolidated appeals. ...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Method-of-Treatment Claims That Did Not Require a Specific Level of Efficacy Held Unpatentable as Obvious in Light Of References...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review determining Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 owned by Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd. unpatentable as obvious...more

PTAB Issues Additional Final Written Decisions Finding AbbVie’s Humira Patent Unpatentable

by Goodwin on

On July 6, 2017, the PTAB issued two additional Final Written Decisions finding AbbVie’s U.S. Patent 8,889,135 (“the ‘135 patent”) unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. The Final Written Decisions were issued in...more

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? - In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,...more

“Catch-All” Phrases Insufficient To Give Proper Notice of Grounds for Petition

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit made clear that “catch-all” phrases in a Petition for IPR and/or a Board’s Institution Decision are insufficient to put a patent owner on...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

Federal Circuit Rejects Board’s Understanding of Prior Art

The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by...more

To Teach Away, Prior Art Must Criticize, Discredit or Discourage the Invention

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness in the context of an asserted teaching away, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that the challenged claims were...more

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

by Knobbe Martens on

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...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 Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

by Knobbe Martens on

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

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

by Knobbe Martens on

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

219 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 9
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.