News & Analysis as of

Patent Prosecution Obviousness Prior Art

Lathrop GPM

Significant Federal Circuit Decision Redefines Prior Art Requirements

Lathrop GPM on

Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more

Fenwick & West LLP

En Banc Federal Circuit Overrules Longstanding Test for Design Patent Obviousness

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Smart & Biggar

Safe and cost-effective divisional application filing strategies under Canada’s newest patent rules

Smart & Biggar on

Canada recently introduced patent rules related to excess claim fees and continued examination fees that have the potential to complicate conventional approaches to filing divisional patent applications....more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[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

Haug Partners LLP

Belcher Pharmaceuticals’ Patent Held Unenforceable by the Federal Circuit

Haug Partners LLP on

The Federal Circuit published a precedential decision on September 1, 2021 regarding the unenforceability of a pharmaceutical patent due to inequitable conduct. In Belcher Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Hospira, Inc., the Court...more

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

Patent Prosecution Tool Kit: The Changing Face of Non-Obviousness

It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more

Williams Mullen

PTAB Designates as Informative Two Ex Parte Decisions Regarding Examiners’ Use of “Design Choice” Rationale in Support of...

Williams Mullen on

On October 15, 2019, the PTAB designated as informative two decisions providing insight into when it is an appropriate for an examiner to reply upon a so-called “design choice” rationale in support of an obviousness...more

Jones Day

325(d) And Printed Publication Issues Doom Petition

Jones Day on

The most persuasive IPR petitions offer fresh unpatentability theories never considered before. But petitions that simply repackage old issues often don’t gain traction. So, when you’re citing prior art that was before the...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Designates Informative Decisions on Discretionary Denial of Institution for Prior Art Previously Presented to the Office

Knobbe Martens on

On March 21, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions as “informative” that denied institution for presenting prior art that had been previously presented during prosecution. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,...more

Jones Day

PTAB Designates Two Decisions Declining Review Under § 325(d) as Informative

Jones Day on

On March 21, 2018 the PTAB issued a press release announcing that two decisions denying review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are designated as informative: Kayak Software Corp.v. International Business Machines Corp.,...more

Knobbe Martens

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more

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

The Turning Tide of Adoption of the Lead Compound Analysis Is Favoring Patent Owners at the PTAB

The PTAB is starting to provide teeth to the Federal Circuit’s lead compound analysis making it more difficult for petitioners to successfully challenge chemical patents in AIA proceeding, as well as providing patent owners...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Finds NuvaRing Patent Nonobvious Without Hindsight

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a non-precedential decision issued in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., v. Warner Chilcott Co. LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness ruling as being improperly grounded in hindsight. This decision...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more

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

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...more

16 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