News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art

The Board Gives Section 325(d) Sharp Teeth—Part II – The Petitioner's Criticality to Selecting and Using The Right Prior Art

This is the second of a three-part series discussing developments around Section 325(d). Part one appeared in our October 2017 newsletter and part three will appear in our December 2017 newsletter....more

Perspectives on the PTAB Newsletter - November 2017

The Perspectives on the PTAB Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both sides...more

Patents in the burgeoning cannabis industry

by Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

With cannabis legal in 29 states for medical use and in eight states for recreational use, there is a surge of entrepreneurism and an influx of capital into the rapidly expanding cannabis industry. Although cannabis remains a...more

Issue Nine: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Motions to Amend: Burden to Prove Amended Claims are Unpatentable Rests with Petitioner - On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, regarding the...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (through OCTOBER 15, 2017)

Since July 2017, there have been no new design institution decisions, and a pair of final written decisions that resulted in cancelled claims. No new design patent petitions have been filed since April 2017. The statistics...more

District Courts Split on Admissibility of Patent Owner IPR Victories

by Jones Day on

In an opinion dated October 12, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence that a challenged patent had survived twenty post-issuance proceedings,...more

Federal Circuit Endorses the Use of a Claim Preamble (Which Isn’t Even a Limitation, Right?) to Find the Claim Was Directed to an...

In Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, [2016-2531, 2016-2532] (November 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the asserted patents were directed to patent...more

PTAB Designates Three Informative Opinions Which Address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

by Jones Day on

On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative....more

Federal Circuit Finds Orally Disintegrating Drug Formulation Obvious

In Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 2016-2169 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that certain claims of Bayer’s patent covering Staxyn would not have been obvious...more

The PTAB Reverses Original Decision After the Federal Circuit Reverses Key Findings and Limits Issues for Review

by Knobbe Martens on

On October 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR holding all claims unpatentable after the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. The PTAB reversed their...more

Expert Testimony on Lack of Motivation Won the Battle, but Lost the War

In BayerPharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., [2016-2169] (November 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that claims 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,613,950 would not have been obvious. The...more

Petitioners Must Explain Combining Multiple Embodiments of Reference in Obviousness Argument

by 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

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Bayer v. Watson, the panel throws out Bayer’s patent to its Staxyn erectile dysfunction drug as being obvious, noting that the district court focused too heavily on the commercial availability of the prior art. The panel...more

Process Step Order Cannot Save Claim with Conventional Manufacturing Steps From Obviousness

by Locke Lord LLP on

On October 26, 2017, the Federal Circuit, in a split decision, upheld the invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,486,150 (“the ’150 patent”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v....more

PTAB Allows Petitioner to Supplement Record Regarding Publication Date of Prior Art Reference

On October 23, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel granted Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information (“the Motion”) on the publication date of an asserted reference. At the time the Petition was...more

Expanded PTAB Panel Explains Exercise of Discretion on Second-Bite Petitions

by McDermott Will & Emery on

A rare expanded panel (including the chief judge) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issued an precedential decision denying requests for rehearing of decisions denying institution in five inter partes...more

Federal Circuit Finds NuvaRing Patent Nonobvious Without Hindsight

by 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

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Merck v. Hospira, the only precedential case decided this week, a majority of the panel affirms a determination of obviousness, noting that despite the objective indicia supporting patentability, the claimed process was...more

PTAB Should Have Given Credit to Inventor Corroborating Evidence

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of whether the patent owner had provided sufficient evidence of prior conception to establish inurement by third-party activity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a...more

The PTAB Establishes Standards for Exercising Discretion to Deny Institution Under § 314(a) and § 325(d)

In AIA post-grant proceedings, petitioners occasionally present challenges based on prior art or argumentation that was previously presented to the Patent Office. In some cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has...more

PTAB Designates as “Informative” Three Discretionary Denials of IPR Institution Decisions

by Knobbe Martens on

On October 24, 2017, the PTAB designated as “informative” the following three decisions that discretionarily denied institution of IPR petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Section 325(d) provides that “the Director may take...more

PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

by Jones Day on

On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira,...more

Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on Patent Owners’ Prior Art

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decision finding the challenged claims obvious over a single prior art reference owned by the patent owner,...more

That’s How the Prima Facie Obviousness Cookie Crumbles

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Finding that the prior art taught all of the claim elements and provided a motivation to combine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a challenged patent claim would have been obvious...more

Down to the Wire: Patentee Must Rebut Inherent Functionality of Prior Art

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Despite an error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) in relying on inherency to render an obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision, finding...more

697 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 28
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.