News & Analysis as of

Printed Publications Section 102

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Evidence Supports Prior Art’s Public Accessibility but Not the Board’s Adoption of an Unpresented Theory of Anticipation - In M & K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1160, the Federal Circuit...more

McDermott Will & Emery

If You Seek or Browse and Can Find, It’s Publicly Available, but Anticipation Isn’t Obvious and Requires Notice

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that facilitating browsing of documents on a website was sufficient to support public accessibility of prior art references, but that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Knobbe Martens

Evidence Supports Prior Art’s Public Accessibility but Not the Board’s Adoption of an Unpresented Theory of Anticipation

Knobbe Martens on

M & K HOLDINGS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Moore, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Title-searchable publications shared on a prominent standards-setting...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

“Anything Goes” – Federal Circuit Says PTAB Can Use Any Means to Knock Out Substitute Claims (Uniloc v. Hulu: Part 2)

Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more

Haug Partners LLP

Uniloc v. Hulu - Federal Circuit Clash over Scope of PTAB Review of Substitute Claims

Haug Partners LLP on

WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more

Jones Day

Speech Recognition Patent Invalidated on Multiple Grounds in CBM Review

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Final Written Decision in favor of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) and against Promptu Systems Corporation (“Promptu”) in a covered business method...more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions: Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3D 1368...

Although the Federal Circuit has analyzed the qualifications of prior art printed publications since its inception, the precise standards for public accessibility have become dramatically more important under PTAB...more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

McAfee & Taft

Gavel to Gavel: Supreme Court provides clarity

McAfee & Taft on

Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

§102(b) Printed Publication: Unrestricted Distribution at a Trade Show

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Upholds Trade Show Catalog As Prior Art in Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.

Recently in Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”)...more

Sunstein LLP

Section 101 Gains a Toehold in IPRs

Sunstein LLP on

Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Sales Catalog From Dealer Trade Show Qualifies As Printed Publication

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Petitioners in Inter Partes Review proceedings have looked beyond typical patent and scientific literature to find a “printed publication” that might invalidate a patent. This has given the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Jones Day

Relevant Public, Not General Public, When Determining Availability of Printed Publication

Jones Day on

On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Petitioner GoPro, Inc. failed to establish the public availability of an alleged prior art printed publication. GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, __...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

FDA Xyrem Meeting Materials Qualify As Printed Publication

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated seven Orange Book-listed patents for Xyrem®. The main issue on...more

Jones Day

Are Online Videos "Publicly Accessible"?

Jones Day on

The decision in HVLP02 LLC v. Oxygen Frog turned on whether or not a YouTube video could qualify as a "printed publication," and therefore constitute prior art for patent purposes. As courts tend to assign the term "printed...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