New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The explosion of artificial intelligence has raised some challenging questions in patent law, particularly with prior art, or the body of knowledge available prior to the filing of patent application. Two of the most...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
Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit. In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test...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
Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the...more
In its recent en banc decision issued in LQK v. GM Global, the Federal Circuit overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, jettisoning decades-old precedent and loosely outlining a design patent...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 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
The USPTO published a request for comments (RFC) on April 30th, focusing on how advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) may impact the USPTO’s assessment of patentability governing (i) what may qualify as prior art and...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a request for comment (RFC) on “how AI could affect evaluations of how the level of ordinary skills in the arts are made to determine if an invention is patentable...more
The USPTO is seeking public input on whether prior art must be authored by humans and how, if at all, AI-generated disclosures should be treated differently from non-AI generated disclosures....more
For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....more
We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex...more
Recent guidance published in the Federal Register by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) explains some of what is required by patent examiners in making an obviousness case under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since it is...more
On February 27, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published updated guidance for examiners on how to make a proper determination of obviousness. The guidance expands upon and reinforces the legal framework for...more
On February 27, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released new guidance aimed at enhancing the methodology used to assess the obviousness of patent applications. The updated USPTO guidance emphasizes the...more
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...more
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
The Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruling that found all claims of a Volvo Penta patent unpatentable as obvious. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC appealed a...more
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) In this week’s case of the week, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed existing precedent that in inter partes review proceedings before...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more