The concept of the "person of ordinary skill in the art" (POSITA) remains pivotal in patent law, particularly in evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and compliance with enablement and written description requirements...more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
Determining whether a claimed invention is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 often depends on whether the prior art provides a clear motivation for modifying existing knowledge. Central to this analysis is the concept of a...more
In September of last year, and in light of a corresponding Japanese patent infringement suit, I published an article detailing how The Pokémon Company had filed two patent applications at the United States Patent and...more
This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
In a recent inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on compelling evidence of secondary considerations to hold all challenged claims not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the...more
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES V GENERAL ELECTRIC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes. Summary: Unrebutted evidence of non-enablement is sufficient to overcome an invalidity challenge based on a standalone §103 reference....more
On February 11, 2021, Amarin Pharma, Inc. (“Amarin”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision to affirm a finding that Amarin’s patents are invalid as...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR International v. Teleflex altered the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in determining whether a claimed invention passes muster under the Patent Act. The KSR Court...more
In This Issue - Inventorship, Patenting and AI: The Public Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions - Interest in artificial intelligence has become so keen that questions previously found only in works...more
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
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
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied KSR and its obviousness progeny, finding that patent claims directed to location plotting were obvious under 35 USC § 103. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., Case No....more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC - Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., Appeal No. 2018-1635 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2019) - In this appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision regarding covered...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more
The PTAB’s recent decision instituting post-grant review of a design patent in Man Wah Holdings Ltd. v. Raffel provides interesting perspectives on how design patent invalidity theories work. This decision highlights the...more
On April 17, 2019, Senators Tillis (R-NC) and Coons (D-DE), along with a bipartisan group of three members of the House of Representatives, announced the release of a framework on Section 101 patent reform. Senators Tillis...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co., Appeal Nos. 2018-1257, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2019) - The Federal Circuit issued only one precedential patent decision this week. The short,...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
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
In the recent decision of Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit may have expanded how factual questions underpin subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101. Since the two-part eligibility...more