The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that nothing requires a petitioner to identify a prior art reference as a “primary reference” in...more
A divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that certain challenged claims were nonobvious after applying the substantial evidence test to resolve a...more
American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2021-1321, -1323, -1379, -1382 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) - In an appeal from inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The International Trade Commission can more readily provide injunctive relief against an adjudged infringer than a district court, under appropriate conditions (i.e., with regard to an infringing product or a product made by...more
In Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) decision to invalidate five patents owned by Columbia,...more
Since yesterday was the Super Bowl, we assume that all of our readers spent today as we did, thinking about the Federal Circuit's recent decision in M&K Holdings about a video compression patent. If not, we've got you...more
The Federal Circuit recently applied well-established principles of obviousness in affirming the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's invalidation of several patents related to antifungal formulations in Anacor Pharmaceuticals,...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
In Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, Judge Stoll held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “[the Federal Circuit’s] review of a patentability determination is confined to ‘the grounds upon which the Board actually...more
Affirming a jury verdict of infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the question of whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard should be resolved by...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit modified and re-issued its...more
Henny Penny petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Frymaster’s U.S. Patent 8,497,691. The ’691 patent relates to deep fryers and describes a system for measuring the state of cooking oil degradation with a “total polar...more
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: New arguments may be raised during PTAB oral hearings so long as they...more
AMGEN INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC. Before Moore, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Biological engineering activity that would otherwise constitute patent...more
GAME AND TECH. CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LTD. Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board, applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, must independently determine whether...more
A panel of the Federal Circuit recently sounded off with something less than the usual deferential tone regarding review under the substantial evidence standard of factual findings on patentability made by the Patent Trial...more
QUAKE v. LO - Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Summary: A claimed method must be expressly described as a whole in order to satisfy the written description...more
ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD. v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC - Before Taranto, Mayer, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1295 nor 28...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
Assertions of obviousness based on prior art references in combination with “routine optimization” by one skilled in the art are common in the chemical and biological fields. The Federal Circuit recently addressed this issue...more
On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determining that there was no interference in fact between the University of California’s (“UC”) U.S. Patent...more
Federal Circuit Summary - On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s determination of no...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference....more