In CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer made in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding was not binding in that proceeding, i.e., the disclaimer is not binding in the proceeding in...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued updated guidance on acceptable uses of applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 311.1 This guidance replaces the guidance...more
In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more
In Ingevity Corporation v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that a prior invention will not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) unless the prior inventors appreciated the invention. Specifically, an...more
2/9/2022
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Auto Parts ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 337
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 opinion, that the doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to apply, but only for an assignor’s invalidity assertion that contradicts explicit or...more
In Raytheon Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) incorrectly invalidated a Raytheon turbine engine patent as obvious based on a...more
In Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., the Federal Circuit held that the plain meaning of the claim phrase “command function” was limited to functions that command an action to be taken. The meaning of...more
In Akeva L.L.C., v. Nike, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer in a specification that excluded a particular embodiment prevented later claims in the continuation patents from claiming the excluded embodiment,...more
9/17/2020
/ Claim Amendments ,
Continuation Applications ,
Disclaimers ,
Nike ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Written Descriptions