Prior Art Obviousness

News & Analysis as of

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Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. Depomed, reviewing the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on three related inter partes reviews.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

Federal Circuit Review | December 2015

Expert Testimony Not Always Necessary to Establish Prima Facie Obviousness Case in Inter Partes Review - In Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, Appeal Nos. 2014-1575, 2014-1576, on appeal from an IPR, the Federal Circuit...more

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Last month, in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding that Appellant Ariosa Diagnostics had not met its burden of proving that...more

Federal Circuit Remands IPRs to PTAB for Reference Consideration

The non-invasive prenatal testing field has been an active area for patent challenges. Ariosa has challenged patents held by competitors Sequenom and Verinata. The latter is patent owner in two IPR proceedings challenging...more

A Substantially Pure Isomer Is Obvious When the Completely Pure Isomer Is Known In The Art - Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Many prior cases have addressed whether a pure stereoisomer is obvious when the corresponding 50/50 mixture is known in the prior art. In upholding a finding of summary judgment, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more

Patent Applicant Must Provide Clear Evidence to Antedate a Prior Art Reference - In re Steed et al.

Addressing the requirements for antedating a prior art reference (for a pre-AIA patent application), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences...more

Federal Circuit Sends Verinata Patent Back to PTAB – The Import of Background Prior Art In Supplying The Requisite Motivation To...

On November 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, also the “Board”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision holding that a prior art reference, though not identified as an...more

Connect the Dots: Petition That Fails to Explain How Prior Art Could Be Combined Can Doom a PTAB Proceeding

While claim charts are often used to compare prior art to challenged patent claims, simply submitting those claim charts as part of a petition to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), without more, could lose your case....more

Federal Circuit Review | November 2015

Federal Circuit Declines to Reverse Invalidity, Noninfringement Holdings - In Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1407, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary...more

118 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
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.
×