News & Analysis as of

Prior Art United States Patent and Trademark Office

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

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

BioPharma Patents Quick Tips & News – November 2017

Diagnostic Method Claims in the U.S. I. Let’s recap the last five years! Mayo (2012) = Supreme Court prohibits patents for diagnostic methods without “significantly more” (essentially, you must not only discover a...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

Federal Circuit Review - September 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

IPR Appellants Must Satisfy Article III Standing - In Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Appeal No. 2016-1123, the Federal Circuit held that standing for an appeal to a federal court is based on the...more

Federal Circuit Says "Teaching Away" Must Cover the Entire Claim Scope

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Federal Circuit recently held that certain claims of a patent granted to Fast Felt Corp. covering methods for applying nail tabs on roofing and building material were...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

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

Obviousness Does Not Require Absolute Predictability

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three inter partes re-examination decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating numerous claims in each of...more

[Webinar] Prior Art: Understanding and Attacking Prior Art Rejections - September 6, 10:00am ET

Join us for a compare and contrast discussion on what constitutes prior art in the United States and in Europe, and how to respond to rejections over that art. Relying on over sixty years combined prosecution experience...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (Through July 1, 2017)

The statistics below reveal the current trends on proceeding breakdowns, institution rates, and outcomes of design patent PTO litigation. Since February 2017, with 13 additional design patent institution decisions the...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

The United States Patent Office Totally Rejected Your Claims? Don't Panic!

by Ward and Smith, P.A. on

In my almost 17 years of practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), by far the most common telephone call I receive from inventors is a frantic inquiry about an Office Action received from the PTO...more

Be Careful Basing Your IPR On Previously Considered Prior Art

by Jones Day on

It is not always possible for a party seeking to challenge a patent in an IPR to find prior art patents or printed publications that the USPTO has not already considered. Often the best available prior art comes from the...more

Patent Grace Period Laws in the IP5 Patent Offices: Some Similarities But Largely Different

Life science and other high technology companies most frequently file patent applications in five IP offices (IP5), namely: the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japanese...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (through February 1, 2017)

Although post-grant challenges of design patents have consistently made up a small percentage of the total number of patent challenges, these numbers have steadily increased to their highest level in 2017. The statistics...more

Why Design Patents Are Surviving Post-Grant Challenges

As of January 2017, the institution rate for Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials involving design patents was 37 percent. That is significantly lower than every other technology area and makes design patents the only...more

New Fed Circuit decision bolsters on-sale bar

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Patent litigators will tell you that there are many ways to invalidate a patent. One of their favorites is a self-inflicted ground of invalidity known as the “on-sale bar.” Under patent law, if you sell (or offer to sell)...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more

Federal Circuit Maintains Pre-AIA Interpretation of the On-Sale Bar for Public Sales

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

A Sale is Still a Sale under the AIA

At least so far, the meaning of “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has not changed from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) following a decision by the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,...more

2017 PTAB Digest: The Latest Trends and Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings

by Morgan Lewis on

Recent patent reform legislation, rule changes, and court rulings are expected to have a significant impact on the strategies of both patent owners and petitioners. Please see full Digest Report below for more information....more

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

by Knobbe Martens on

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

154 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
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.