The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that a technical expert does not need to have been a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. Instead, they may rely on...more
A district court recently precluded a patent attorney from testifying as an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit where the proposed expert lacked the requisite technical expertise to assist the trier of fact in...more
In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the result-effective variable doctrine can apply even when there is no overlap between a claimed...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) because the petitioner failed to show that its primary asserted prior reference, available through the...more
RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Phillip Morris Products S.A., No. 2022-1862 (Fed. Cir. February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is...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
In part 1 of this series, I introduced the “on sale bar” and described how a commercial sale or offer for sale can negate patentability, according to the doctrine the Supreme Court established in Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc....more
The Court had a busy week as the weather begins to turn, and those with school-aged kids begin to plan for spring break. This week we look at the Court’s latest reminder that obviousness is a flexible analysis, so below we...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more
In Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., the Federal Circuit considered whether prior disclosure of a genus of compounds and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts was sufficient to anticipate, under 35 U.S.C....more
The Federal Circuit has held that a transcription error in a prior art document wouldn’t have been relied on by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and thus couldn’t be used to prove obviousness....more
In Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld a finding from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) the claims of Ethicon’s patent directed to a surgical stapler...more
Biogen International GMBH, Biogen MA, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. marks the Federal Circuit’s most recent interpretation of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description requirement in the Hatch-Waxman context. No....more
Last week saw recently confirmed Judge Cunningham sitting for her first oral arguments (alongside her former boss, Judge Dyk). But we’ll have to wait a bit longer for her first authored opinion. Below we provide our usual...more
US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution denials for inter partes review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review petitions have steadily risen from 13 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2020. In 2020, the institution...more
In a slow week, the Federal Circuit nevertheless gave patent litigators everywhere a non-precedential opinion to nibble on about the definition of the ever-present person having ordinary skill in the art. Below we provide...more
No Shortcuts to the “Reasonable Pertinence” Analysis in the Analogous Art Inquiry - In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal No. 20-1104, the Federal Circuit determination as to whether a reference is...more
On November 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, holding that the PTAB applied an...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a report digesting the feedback it received concerning issues of patent policy for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The report, “Public Views on...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit was relatively busy, issuing five precedential opinions and three other written decisions. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC - Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A determination as to whether a reference is analogous art to a claimed invention...more
In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the '740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...more
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Because a mapping technique must be performed on either a...more
The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can institute inter partes review (IPR) on a ground not advanced by the petitioner, as well as whether the general knowledge of a person...more