Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Design Patent Obviousness Test Thrown Out - The U.S. Court of Appeals...more
On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit upended decades of precedent regarding design patents in its decision LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC. Sitting en banc, a panel of Federal Circuit judges overturned...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...more
Netflix petitioned for IPR of a DivX patent related to “trick play” functionality, which allows a user to fast forward, rewind, and scene skip frames. Netflix’s petition argued that the challenged claims would have been...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of “analogous prior art,” a patent law doctrine fundamental to the legal determination of whether a patent is invalid as obvious over the prior art....more
Addressing the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s application of the field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent tests for determining analogous art, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Board should not...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
In Everstar Merch. Co. v. Willis Elec. Co., No. 2021-1882, 2022 WL 1089909 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2022), the Federal Circuit provided guidance to distinguish between raising a new argument and elaborating on previously raised...more
Finding that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) applied an erroneous interpretation of claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Board decision upholding an examiner’s rejection of a lip...more
We recently wrote about the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Donner Technology, LLC. v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, where the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of an obviousness challenge due to its finding that the prior...more
No Shortcuts to the “Reasonable Pertinence” Analysis in the Analogous Art Inquiry - In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal No. 20-1104, the Federal Circuit determination as to whether a reference is...more
On November 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, holding that the PTAB applied an...more
Addressing the standard for determining whether a prior art reference constitutes analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit was relatively busy, issuing five precedential opinions and three other written decisions. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection...more
DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC - Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A determination as to whether a reference is analogous art to a claimed invention...more
One of the steps in a proper obviousness analysis is to ascertain the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1,...more
AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Whether an asserted prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem...more
In Genzyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision upholding Genzyme’s Orange Book listed patent for the cancer drug Mozobil® against an obviousness challenge, because the...more
Section 103 does not, by its terms, define the “art to which [the] subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,” but longstanding precedent couches this question of fact in terms of “whether the art is analogous or not.”...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and restored the jury’s verdict finding the patents-at-issue not invalid, because the prior art in dispute was...more
Online Banking Patents Based On “Abstract Ideas” Held Patent Ineligible Under Alice - In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Appeal No. 2014-1506, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to...more
Whether or not a prior art reference constitutes “analogous art” for purposes of an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been the subject of debate in many instances. On July 28, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Circuit...more