Prior Art Patents

News & Analysis as of

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

Intellectual Property Alert: Apple v. Samsung: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Design Patent Principles Law

In a much anticipated opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Samsung on May 18, the design patent law with respect to remedies and the infringement test remains robust. Notably, and...more

Patent Owner Must Produce Documents That Are Inconsistent with Its Positions

In IPR2014-00727, Petitioner C&D Zodiac, Inc. seeks review of U.S. Patent No. 8,590,838 owned by B/E Aerospace, Inc. The '838 patent relates to a "spacewall" lavatory. In connection with the IPR proceeding, the Petitioner...more

The PTAB Explores Estoppel in New Representative Decision

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently announced the addition of its March 26, 2015 decision in Dell, Inc. et al. v. Electronics and Telecomms. Res. Inst., IPR2015-00549 (“the ‘549 IPR”) to its online list of...more

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #2

SUPREME COURT CASES - U.S. Supreme Court Remands Case to Federal Circuit to Review Patent Under Teva - On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case back to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal...more

PTAB Estops Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Based New Combinations of Prior Art Raised in Earlier Petition

Dell, Inc. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2015-00549, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2015) - The Board recently added a decision denying inter partes review in Dell, Inc. v. Electronics &...more

No More Soup For You – PTAB Rejects Second IPR Petition Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently denied an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the petitioner’s arguments were substantially similar to those it made in an earlier IPR petition. Both petitions involved...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

Does the AIA Have a Prior Art Exception You Can Use?

U.S. patent applications filed after March 16, 2013, when the “First-Inventor-to-File” portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) took effect, have started to be published. Thus, it is a good time for applicants to consider...more

Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd.

Case Name: Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd., 2013-1630, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2015) (Circuit Judges Newman, Plager, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Plager, J.; Dissent by Newman, J.) (Appeal from...more

Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB? [Video]

Two years after the creation of the America Invents Act post-grant proceedings, many patent owners are facing an uphill battle when attempting to defend their intellectual property before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...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

Antedating by Third-Party Reduction to Practice Not Enough—Conception Needed - Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

In its decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a design patent related to a slow cooker buffet server, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruled that the...more

IPR Incorporation by Reference Argument Not Enough to Save Priority Claim

Many patent challengers have found “incorporation by reference” arguments to be a tempting way to try to convert an obviousness argument into an anticipation argument, but “incorporation by reference” can also impact whether...more

Use Belt and Suspenders; Backup Anticipation with Obviousness - Dell Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.

Addressing the issue of anticipation in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) rejected a petitioner’s anticipation challenge,...more

PTAB Rejects Two Attempts by Patent Owners to Antedate Prior Art

The fact-based nature of conception/reduction to practice issues makes it worthwhile to consider a number of these types of cases as they arise. Here, we discuss such issues from two Board decisions, K-40 Electronics, LLC v....more

Recent IPR Guidance From a Trio of Forums

As inter partes review (IPR) practice continues to develop and practitioners feel their way around the edges, the last month brought helpful guidance from a trio of forums: the Federal Circuit, the Central District of...more

PTAB Excludes Documents Corroborating Publication Date as Hearsay but Admits Librarian Testimony - Toyota Motor Corporation v....

In a final written decision, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent (PTO) Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted in part the patent owner’s motion to exclude certain documents purporting to corroborate the...more

Teaching Away Arguments Fail to Gain Traction with PTAB

A favored, but largely unsuccessful, line of defense for Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the argument that the prior art references-at-issue teach away from their combination. A typical form of this...more

Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Prior Art that Mentions an Object with Standard Textbook that Describes that Object - Intel...

Addressing the merits in an inter partes review of a patent for improved computer graphics calculations, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found all challenged claims unpatentable. ...more

Petitioners Cannot Respond to Substantive Issue Raised in Preliminary Response - VTech, Inc. v. Spherix Inc.

Addressing whether a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) can respond to a patent owner’s preliminary response, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the...more

239 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, 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.
×