News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Obviousness

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

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

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

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In a non-precedential decision issued in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., v. Warner Chilcott Co. LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness ruling as being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

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

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Requirements for a Teaching Away by the Prior Art

In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught...more

PTAB Sheds Light On Video Game Patent Validity

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently upheld the patentability of a video game-related patent, ruling the computer graphics features were not obvious over the prior art. The patent (US Patent 7,061,488) address...more

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

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

In In Re Cray, the panel grants Cray’s petition for a writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court’s handling of the case is not consistent with its case law regarding what is “a regular and established place of...more

CAFC Finds Harmless Error in USPTO Reliance On Doctrine of Inherency

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more

When Your Background Dooms The Invention

37 CFR 1.77(b)(7) suggests that a patent application should include a “Background of the Invention.” The Background of the Invention, however, can cause trouble if the drafter is not careful....more

Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more

Mere Quantification of the Results of a Known Process is Not Patentable

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, [2016-2287] (September 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an Inter Partes reexamination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301 on a method of making cable...more

Secondary Considerations Win Again

by Jones Day on

As we have previously discussed (on February 1, March 1, March 30, and May 19), reliance on secondary considerations of non-obviousness has been hit or miss for patent owners trying to convince PTAB panels that the secondary...more

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

Intercontinental v. Kellogg involves a fight between two food industry powerhouses, Kraft and Kellogg, in which a majority of the panel affirms summary judgment of obviousness of a patent directed to a resealable cookie...more

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

Federal Circuit upholds Millennium’s Patent on Velcade®

by Knobbe Martens on

MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. SANDOZ INC - (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017) (NEWMAN, Mayer, O’Malley) - This case arose out of an ANDA litigation between Millennium and a number of generic-drug companies who sought FDA...more

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

245 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10
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.