Latest Posts › Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Share:

Potential Claim Construction Error Is Harmless When Not Relied Upon by the Board

BOT M8 LLC v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC - Before Prost, Reyna, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party challenging the Board’s decision by alleging claim construction...more

Ensuring a Reference Is Analogous Art to a Challenged Patent, Not to Another Reference

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. Before Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

Description Prescription

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA V. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus...more

Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious

HOYT AUGUSTUS FLEMING V. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION - Before Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim is obvious where “the proposed combination of [the...more

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing...more

The Obviousness of Preamble Limitations Can Be a Real Headache for Patent Challengers

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS  - Before Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In claims for methods of using apparatuses or compositions, statements of...more

Presumption of Nexus Between Claims and Commercial Products May Not Apply When Unclaimed Features Are Critical

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The presumption of nexus analysis requires the fact finder to consider the...more

Obviousness in View of Canceled Claims

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. BAXTER CORPORATION ENGLEWOOD - Before Prost, Clevenger, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent that has issued and subsequently been canceled may be...more

Claim Construction Arguments Not Made to the PTAB Are Forfeited on Appeal

IN RE: GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC - Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim construction arguments are forfeited if not raised before the PTAB. The PTAB...more

Applying the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the Claim in Light of the Specification, Federal Circuit Revives Claims in...

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC v. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies Not All § 112 ¶ 6 Indefiniteness Prevents Prior Art Invalidity Analysis by PTAB

COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB V. OTICON MED. AB - Before Taranto, O’Malley, and Newman. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Anticipation and obviousness analysis by the PTAB is not impossible...more

Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp. [Opinion On Remand]

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. On remand from the Supreme Court. Summary: Even though the issue of the jury’s award of lost profits was still pending, a party could not reopen the issue of...more

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more

14 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide