The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review for a design patent in part because the petitioner failed to show that three asserted references qualified as prior art. Specifically, the...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a PTAB decision that claims of an “e-cigarette” patent were unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The question on appeal was whether a claimed range was...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently instituted an inter partes review where the patent owner argued that the petitioner failed to establish its expert as a person of skill in the art, which would have rendered the...more
In Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC, the District of Delaware ruled on summary judgment that ASC is estopped from asserting two obviousness grounds against a patent claim because it raised the same grounds...more
In two related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petitioner’s motion to exclude the declaration of an inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed Cybergenetics Corp.’s infringement suit after determining that the asserted claims—which recite mathematical algorithms for analyzing data taken from a DNA...more
In an August 18 memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding agency guidance on the proper role of “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The memorandum...more
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Texas seeking judgment that it complied with its fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations when it offered a...more
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (’842 Patent) and ordered the PTAB to reconsider whether the patent should have been disqualified from covered...more
10/17/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 103 ,
Technology
In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more
11/19/2018
/ Cross Examination ,
Declaration ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Exclude ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
On August 1, 2016, Canfield Scientific, Inc. filed a civil action in the District of New Jersey against Melanoscan, LLC, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,748 (“the ’748 Patent”). In...more
On October 23, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel granted Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information (“the Motion”) on the publication date of an asserted reference. At the time the Petition was...more
On March 20, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of patent claims that were also the subject of a previously filed IPR by the same petitioner (IBM). IBM...more
The Supreme Court held that laches is no longer a defense against patent infringement. The Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations already limits the window for damages for infringement, which precludes any further...more
3/25/2017
/ Appeals ,
Damages ,
Defense Strategies ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Laches ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Petrella v. MGM ,
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v First Quality Baby Products ,
SCOTUS ,
Separation of Powers ,
Statute of Limitations
In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,550,271 (the “’271 patent”) were not unpatentable because “compelling evidence of secondary considerations of...more