COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB V. OTICON MED. AB - Before Taranto, O’Malley, and Newman. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Anticipation and obviousness analysis by the PTAB is not impossible...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...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
In its recent decision, Fiber, LLC. v. Ciena Corp., No. 2019-1005 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a reminder that the structure necessary to satisfy the...more
As we know, Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced a draft bill months ago that would "reform Section 101 of the Patent Act" and followed that up with a series of congressional hearings. Senator...more
Addressing the applicability of 35 USC § 112, ¶6 to the term “mechanical control assembly,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gave undue weight to the patent’s...more
In a second notice of proposed rulemaking (besides the one for patent eligibility) announced January 4, 2019 and published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, the Patent and Trademark Office has proposed guidelines...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Summary: Evidence intrinsic to a patent may be sufficient to overcome the presumption...more
Functional Claiming in Software Patents - Software patents are generally directed to a sequence of steps or rules, i.e., an algorithm, performed by a computer programmed to carry out the algorithm. Because algorithms are...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err in its conclusions that a claim element reciting “means” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 and that the challenged claims...more