News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art

Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Should Have Invalidated Additional Claims in IPRs

In CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-2198 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed three IPR decisions, each on the same patent, reversing the PTAB’s finding in one of the three decisions. The PTAB had...more

Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – November 2017

by Fish & Richardson on

This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases. In November 2017, there were five notable decisions for...more

SAS v. Matal – Overview of Oral Argument

On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal. Issue presented - Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) requires that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issue a final...more

Inherent Obviousness: Available IPR Rationale With a High Standard

by Jones Day on

On November 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (IPR2016-01096). The ’061 patent is owned by Alkermes Pharma Ireland, Ltd. and Alkermes Controlled...more

Federal Circuit Review - November 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more

PTAB Issues Guidance On Claim Amendments Caused By Aqua Products Decision

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In a November 21, 2017 memorandum, David P. Ruschke, the PTAB’s Chief Administrative Patent Judge, issued new guidance affecting pending and future motions to amend claims in inter partes review proceedings. The guidance...more

PTAB “Clarifies” Procedures For Motions To Amend

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

On November 21, 2017, the PTAB released its “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products.” This guidance states that a Patent Owner’s motion to amend now only has to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §316(d), and...more

The Importance of Affidavit Evidence in Proving Public Accessibility of Printed Publications

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of evidence sufficient to establish when a document qualifies as printed publication and prior art, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issued two decisions reaching differing conclusions,...more

Cat on a Hot Asphalt Roof? PTAB’s BRI Is Too Narrow

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decision upholding patentability of the challenged claims in an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the PTAB’s broadest...more

PTAB Denies Petition to Institute IPR Because Petitioner Failed to Make Threshold Showing That a Reference Was Publicly Accessible...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Pfizer, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of the sole claim of Biogen Inc.’s (“Patent Owner”) U.S. Patent 8,329,172 (the “’172 Patent”)....more

Secondary Considerations Transformed into Rebuttal Evidence

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of prima facie obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that evidence of secondary considerations failed to overcome a strong showing of obviousness....more

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

We do not usually report on district court cases, but the Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus design patent case handled by our firm is particularly interesting, given the award of all of defendant’s profits, and the district...more

Image Processing Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex. 2017)

Plaintiff Image Processing Technologies, LLC ("IPT") filed suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent...more

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

709 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
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.