Substantial Evidence Standard

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Review | November 2016

Fraud-Detection Patent Claimed Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent...more

Hard to Reverse Adverse PTAB Rulings Under Substantial Evidence Standard

Over a vigorous dissent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decision affirming rejection of all pending claims of a patent as being obvious, as supported...more

Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Reviewed Under Substantial Evidence Test

Coastal Hills Rural Preservation v. County of Sonoma et al. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1234 - Why It Matters: The California Court of Appeal applied the substantial evidence standard of review and not the fair argument...more

New York’s Highest Court: No “Stretch” in Yogi’s Independent Contractor Classification

Seyfarth Synopsis: The New York Court of Appeals recently rejected the narrow view of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and found that substantial evidence did not support a finding that certain yoga instructors were...more

Substantial Evidence Supports Determination of Reasonable Expectation of Success

In In re Efthymiopoulos, [2016-1003] (October 18, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that the claimed invention relating to the administration or an anti-influeza drug “by inhalation through the mouth alone”...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Internal Fight Over Role of Appellate Court Reveals Substantial Difference of Opinion over Substantial Evidence at Federal Circuit

In Apple, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original...more

California Supreme Court Addresses CEQA Supplemental Review; Rejects “New Project” Test

Recent decision resolves appellate split regarding standard of review for agency decision to prepare supplemental environmental review. On September 19, the California Supreme Court held that the substantial evidence...more

California Supreme Court Rejects "New Project" Test In High Profile CEQA Suit

“Enough already!” Reading between the lines, this is what a seemingly exasperated California Supreme Court appears to be saying in its latest California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) decision?Friends of the College of...more

California Supreme Court Rejects "New Project" Test for Modifications to Previously Approved Projects

On September 19, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District (Case No. S214061). The Supreme Court held that...more

“New and Improved” is Not Always a Good Slogan Under CEQA

Marketing departments in major corporations love to describe products as “new and improved” in order to convince you that the product is something you need. In many cases though, you already have the product; the new and...more

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and...

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more

“Substantial Evidence” Hurdle is Substantially Difficult to Overcome

One of the less appreciated hurdles to a successful appeal of a Final Written Decision in an IPR proceeding is the “substantial evidence” standard of review the Federal Circuit applies to the Graham factors that underlie a...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc. -- CAFC Grants Rehearing En Banc to Consider PTAB Motions to Amend

On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more

A Mark Should be Considered a Whole, and not Dissected

In Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, [2016-1103] the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s finding that Oakville’s registered mark MAYA and Georgallis’s applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently...more

California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County (Case No. S214061)

On May 4, 2016, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (Case No. S214061), which addresses the standard of review that...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion of IPR Reply that Raised New Grounds of Invalidity

In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v, Illumina Cambridge Ltd., [2015-1693] (May 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s Final Written decision that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,566,537, directed to a...more

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Federal Circuit Says It's Required to Accord the PTAB Deference Until Instructed Otherwise by...

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

The Beat Goes On: D.C. Circuit Upholds NLRB View That Orchestra Musicians Are Employees

Last week, a federal appeals court enforced a ruling by the NLRB that orchestra musicians are employees, not independent contractors. The import of the decision in Lancaster Symphony Orchestra v. NLRB is sure to reverberate...more

Federal Circuit Maintains “Substantial Evidence” Standard of Review in AIA Post Grant Proceedings

On April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied a petition seeking rehearing en banc of its application of the “substantial evidence” standard of review in post-grant administrative proceedings, in the case of Merck & Cie v....more

Petitioners: Put All Needed Evidence in Your Petition - Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.

Addressing the rules governing admissibility of supplemental information during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

“Substantial Evidence” Review Dooms PTAB Appeal - Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.

Addressing the issue of obviousness in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) under a...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2016

The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more

PTAB Trial Standard Of Review Requires Affirmance Despite Contrary Evidence

In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held the challenged claims obvious in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Although the...more

Court Can’t Change the Claim Construction After a Verdict

In Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc., [2014-1437, 2014-1485] (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the trial court’s JMOL determination of no invalidity of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 because it was based on a post-verdict...more

61 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
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.
×