Latest Posts › Prior Art

Share:

When Are Post-AIA Prior Art Patents Effectively Filed?

Today, the Director of the U.S. Patent Office designated the final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) precedential as to section II.E.3. In that section, the Board...more

Replies in Inter Partes Review – How Far is Too Far?

Parties in inter partes review proceedings often dispute whether a reply to a patent owner response is truly responsive or instead an attempt to introduce new arguments that are not reasonably tied to those set out in the...more

PTAB Alert: Estoppel and the “Skilled Searcher” Standard

Yesterday, in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023), the Federal Circuit held that for estoppel to apply under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a patent holder must prove, by a preponderance...more

Federal Circuit Confirms that AAPA May Not Form the Basis of a Ground in an IPR

In a precedential opinion issued this week, the Federal Circuit held that Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) does not constitute “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) and thus...more

Limiting the Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art

Today, the USPTO issued a memorandum providing guidance on the use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). The guidance limits the use of AAPA, stating “admissions by the applicant in the specification of the challenged...more

Exercising Care in Selecting Grounds is Even More Crucial Post-SAS

Petitioners are best served by pursuing a limited number of grounds based on the best prior art they can find. This is due in large measure to (1) the limited space Petitioner has to make its arguments, and (2) estoppel based...more

Publications Must Be Accessible to Persons of Ordinary Skill

On Wednesday, September 7, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358 and 7,776,072 were not obvious, in part because certain cited prior art was not “disseminated or otherwise made available...more

A Non-illusory Opportunity to Amend

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") recently granted a motion to amend. A successful motion to amend is rare; only six have been granted to date. The case is Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger...more

Federal Circuit Remands IPRs to PTAB for Reference Consideration

The non-invasive prenatal testing field has been an active area for patent challenges. Ariosa has challenged patents held by competitors Sequenom and Verinata. The latter is patent owner in two IPR proceedings challenging...more

9 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