Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD. v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., CHILISIN AMERICA LTD. [OPINION] (2022-1873, 10/16/23) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham) - Stoll, J. The Court reversed the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board non-obviousness decision, finding that the context of the proposed combination of prior art in the Board’s obviousness inquiry...more
SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University, Appeal No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) Our case of the week addresses a wrinkle in the law concerning disputes between parties that filed patent applications...more
In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued four opinions regarding US design patents— two precedential opinions and two unprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions, In re SurgiSil and Campbell...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit gave a mixture of success and failure to the parties in four separate inter partes review decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
LIQWD, INC. v. L'OREAL USA, INC. Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from...more
State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) In a reissued, slightly altered version of a July 3, 2018 decision,...more
Claims Directed to Methods for Streaming Audiovisual Data Held Unpatentable Under § 101 - In Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communications, Appeal Nos. 2016-2531, 2016-2532, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...more
In Nidec v. Zhongshan, the entire panel affirms a determination of obviousness but two judges question whether § 315(c) of the AIA was improperly used to permit joinder as to a second Zhongshan petition filed after the...more