News & Analysis as of

Reversible Error Patents

Rejecting Pendency of Related Cases as a Dominant Factor, Federal Circuit Orders ED Texas to Transfer Patent Infringement Case to...

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In re Google, Inc., Case No. 2017-107 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017)(nonprecedential). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of...more

USPTO Errs in Failing to Carry Burden to Support Rejection

Failure of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to respond to patentee arguments in more than a conclusory manner constitutes reversible error. Where one party has the burden to establish a particular fact, the Federal...more

In re NuVasive Brings the Administrative Procedure Act to IPRs

NuVasive owns US 8,187,334, which claims certain spinal implants. Medtronic filed a petition challenging various claims of the ‘334 patent as obviousness over US 2002/0165550 (Frey) in view of US 5,860,973 (Michelson). ...more

Federal Circuit Issues Second Reversal in an Inter Partes Review Finding the PTAB’s Obviousness Analysis to Contain “Legal Errors”...

On November 3, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC1, a rare precedential opinion reversing a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review proceeding. This is...more

Clerical Errors Forgiven

In SCHOTT Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holdings Company, Inc., IPR2014-00367, Paper 30 (September 22, 2014), the Board forgave a clerical error that resulted in the petitioner’s expert declaration not being filed until January...more

Replacing a Certificate of Translation is a Correction of a Clerical Error, Not a Submission of Supplemental Information

In Medtroinc. Inc., v NuVasive, Inc., [IPR2014-00075], Paper 10 (February 28, 2014), Medtronic wanted to submit a corrected certificate for the translation of Exhibit 1002, but the NuVasive opposed arguing the that corrected...more

Patent Watch: Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.

by BakerHostetler on

[A] finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages. On December 19, 2012, in Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech....more

Patent Watch: OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.

by BakerHostetler on

[W]e have emphatically rejected any formal burden-shifting framework in evaluating the four Graham factors [including the objective considerations of nonobviousness]. The district court's failure to consider the evidence...more

8 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1
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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!