News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Patents

Does Mayo Preclude the Patenting of Medical Diagnostics?

by Burns & Levinson LLP on

On August 4, 2017, the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts found U.S. patent 7267820 (the ‘820 patent), owned by Athena Diagnostics, Inc., to be directed to non-patentable subject matter, and therefore...more

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

The PTAB Reaches Same Determination After Remand Despite Having Construction and Analysis Set Aside

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR after the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. On remand, the PTAB reached the same...more

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

When considering the patent-eligibility of claims, size usually matters. Claims that are longer and recite more detailed inventions tend to be more likely to survive 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges than those that are shorter and...more

Issue Seven: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel Proceedings - In In re Certain Network Devices and Related Software and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-935, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) had issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and a cease...more

District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

by Jones Day on

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (Through July 1, 2017)

The statistics below reveal the current trends on proceeding breakdowns, institution rates, and outcomes of design patent PTO litigation. Since February 2017, with 13 additional design patent institution decisions the...more

Board Was Mixed Up Over Blender Patent

In Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., [2016-1511] (August 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that Whirlpool’s U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 relating to a household blender was not...more

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

The Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art in IPR Petitions

by WilmerHale on

Admissions made by the patentee, either in the patent specification or during the course of prosecution, identifying a particular work as ‘‘prior art’’ can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations....more

Interplay Between “Technological Invention” and “Significantly More” in PTAB CBM Review

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 18, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review for U.S. Patent No. 8,955,029 (“the ’029 patent”) on grounds of...more

PTAB Grants Rare Motion To Amend Patent Claim After Federal Circuit Remand

by Jones Day on

Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more

PTAB Grants Contingent Motion to Amend on Remand from Federal Circuit

On July 17, 2017, the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (the “Board”) granted in-part, Patent Owner’s conditional motion to amend on remand from an appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a final written decision issued in April 2015,...more

PTAB Can Rely on New Evidence Introduced by Petitioner in its Reply

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In a decision last month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave petitioners in AIA proceedings yet another weapon to invalidate patents – by affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that relied,...more

PTAB Can Adopt Petitioners’ Arguments Wholesale

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may rely on an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s arguments and adopt its position wholesale, the US Court of Appeals for the...more

Berkeley Files Opening Brief in CRISPR Appeal

The University of California/Berkeley filed its opening brief to the Federal Circuit last week, asking that Court to overturn the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that there was no interference-in-fact between...more

Patent Owner Must Receive Notice of References Against Each Challenged Claim

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In remanding a case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that it was procedurally improper for the PTAB to find claims obvious during inter partes review...more

Patentee’s Willful Ignorance, Vexatious Lawsuits Set Off Alarm Bells

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision that an infringement case was not exceptional and found that the patentee’s willful ignorance of prior art and commencement of multiple...more

Federal Circuit Thoroughly Reverses District Court Findings of Velcade® Patent Obviousness

On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court...more

UK Supreme Court broadens scope of patent protection

by Dechert LLP on

The UK Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly sets out a revised approach to assessing the scope of protection of patents. The new approach is likely to confer greater protection on patent owners, by providing...more

Unexpected Results of an Obvious Process are Non-obvious

In Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., [2015-2066, 2016-1008, 2016-1009, 2016-1010, 2016-1109, 2016-1110, 2016-1283, 2016-1762] (July 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that...more

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

Diagnostic and Personalized Medicine Claims — Strategies for Navigating the §101 Minefield

In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostic LLC, the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealt another blow to the patent eligibility of diagnostic methods and the growing field of personalized medicine....more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...more

642 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 26
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.