News & Analysis as of

Section 103 Prior Art

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

In re Couvaras, No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023)

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Silly § 102 Tricks

With further apologies to David Letterman - Almost two years ago we published Stupid § 101 Tricks, an article discussing some of the annoying, improper, and yet disappointingly common patterns seen in rejection and...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Industry Praise of Consumer Hair Product Sufficient to Rebut Bald Obviousness Allegations

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

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Seismic Shifts in §102 and...

In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued four opinions regarding US design patents— two precedential opinions and two unprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions, In re SurgiSil and Campbell...more

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

Haug Partners LLP

Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness – Considered as Part of a “Totality of the Evidence” Approach or a “Prima Facie Framework”?

Haug Partners LLP on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Says Automated Systems Are Not Abstract when Tied to Improvements

It is now over 10 years since the Bilski decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In that decision and several other decisions that followed (i.e., Mayo, Myriad, and Alice), the Supreme Court pronounced...more

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC

Most Notable Patent Decisions in the First Half of 2020

In the first half of 2020, several notable decisions further shaped the course of patent law, with rulings from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit impacting PTAB proceedings, as described below...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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Filling the Hole with Common Sense: When Evidentiary Support is Adequate

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

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Cannot Institute IPR on PTAB-Created Grounds

Knobbe Martens on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - September 2019

Knobbe Martens on

State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Remands CBM Review Decision, Asks PTAB to Explain Meaning of Part One of “Technological Invention” Exception

The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (’842 Patent) and ordered the PTAB to reconsider whether the patent should have been disqualified from covered...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2019 #4

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

Knobbe Martens

Missing Component Does Not Preclude a Prior Art Reference from Being a Primary Reference in a Design Case

Knobbe Martens on

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC. Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall...more

Jones Day

Design Patents at PTAB – Substantially the Same vs Basically the Same

Jones Day on

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

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2019: Court's Infringement Indefiniteness Does Not Dictate Validity Indefiniteness at PTAB

In IPR2018-00272, the Board denied a motion to terminate brought by a Patent Owner who argued that a district court’s finding of indefiniteness required termination of the PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent. 9,393,208....more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Federal Circuit Prescription to Take Away the Pain for Generics - Intellectual Property News

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s ruling of validity under the § 112 written description requirement effectively opening the door for a number of generic drug manufacturers to enter the market with a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2019 #4

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

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

Jones Day

Amended Claims In IPRs Must Clear Higher Hurdle Than Original Claims

Jones Day on

An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more

Knobbe Martens

Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it...more

38 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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