On July 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its decision affirming summary judgment that the asserted design patents were not invalid for non-ornamentality under 35 U.S.C. § 171, and rejecting...more
7/30/2019
/ Appeals ,
Auto Parts ,
Automotive Industry ,
Design Patent ,
Ford Motor ,
Functionality ,
Ornamental Design ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prosecution History Estoppel ,
Summary Judgment
An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...more
2/19/2018
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidentiary Hearings ,
Expert Testimony ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Software Patents
On February 1, the PTAB held its first “Boardside Chat” of 2018, which featured three judges discussing appeals and AIA trial proceedings for design patents. Not only are such proceedings less common for design patents than...more
2/7/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Design Patent ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO ,
Utility Patents
In district courts’ claim construction analyses, intrinsic evidence is of paramount importance. Although extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court,” it is considered “less significant” than the claim language,...more
On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held in NantKwest v. Matal that patent applicants seeking review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the district court must pay the PTO's legal...more