News & Analysis as of

Expert Testimony Section 103

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Filling the Hole with Common Sense: When Evidentiary Support is Adequate

The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Cannot Institute IPR on PTAB-Created Grounds

Knobbe Martens on

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC - Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Clarifies when Live Testimony at Oral Argument Is Permitted, and Motion to Amend Practice

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Petitioners Face A Heightened ‘Motion To Combine’ Threshold

The Board has moved the 103 target without warning. As noted in last month’s article on POPR (Patent Owner Preliminary Response) declarations, the Board is using POPR declarations to deny institution for lack of motivation...more

Jones Day

Petitioners Must Explain Combining Multiple Embodiments of Reference in Obviousness Argument

Jones Day on

In a series of recent decisions, the PTAB denied institution on a dozen petitions on related patents because of one problem it identified in the petitioner’s arguments. All of the petitioner’s proposed grounds challenged the...more

5 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