A Judicial Perspective on Using Technology at Oral Argument | Judge John Owens | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
A recent Federal Circuit decision overturning the long-standing obviousness test for design patents could have wide-ranging implications for design patent owners. The en banc decision in LKQ Corp. et al v. GM Global...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
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc recently overruled the long-standing test for determining obviousness of design patents in LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global...more
In the recent case of LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the en banc (for the first time in five years) Federal Circuit overruled the long-established Rosen-Durling test used for evaluating the...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the en banc Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents. The challenged framework, derived from two cases, In re Rosen, 673 F.2d...more
On May 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled more than 40 years of precedent defining the design patent obviousness standard. The decision eliminates the Rosen-Durling test,...more
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more
On Tuesday, the en banc Federal Circuit released its highly anticipated decision in LKQ v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, rejecting as “improperly rigid” the previous standard for evaluating whether a design patent is...more
In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit decided this week that well-established tests for determining design patent obviousness are “improperly rigid,” in violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent such as KSR v. Teleflex,...more
On Friday, January 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an Order refusing to rehear In re Cellect, LLC en banc. This likely means that the holding in In re Cellect will represent the law regarding...more
LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations, LLC, Case No. 21-2348 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, June 30, 2023) - The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
For the first time in over five years, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be hearing a patent case en banc. The Court has agreed to hear LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, which...more
Patenting antibodies has long been challenging. Although most inventions can be patented based on their functionality, assuming the functionality is new and non-obvious, for antibodies and other biomolecules there is a higher...more
On July 31, 2020, in American Axle v. Neapco, the Federal Circuit split 6-6 on the question of whether to grant en banc review of a panel decision on patent eligibility seen by many as an unwarranted extension of the...more
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Section 101 patent eligibility cases again, and again, and again. But is 2021 the year that the Supreme Court finally addresses the topic? Maybe. I'm hesitant to say yes....more
What comes to mind when you think of “hot topics” in patent law? Subject matter eligibility? Obviousness? Damages? Quietly, administrative law has moved to the top of the list of issues that consume the attention of the Court...more
Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2018-1400 et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2020)- The only precedential decision this week was a modified panel decision of a prior precedential opinion following a...more
Last week a Federal Circuit panel in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC issued an important decision regarding inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on two questions concerning contingent motions to...more
Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly...more
Since arriving at the USPTO, Director Iancu has tried to bring clear messages and consistency to the Office. For purposes of this article, we concentrate on the new POP procedures for Board case law and rules, and how the...more
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc filed in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a decision which found the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) unconstitutional under the...more
Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark...more
The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a dissatisfied patent applicant that chooses to appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting claims of a patent application can appeal...more