Here, Hunting Titan petitioned for IPR of DynaEnergetics’ ’422 patent, asserting that the patent was anticipated in light of the Schacherer reference. The Board instituted the IPR and found all original claims unpatentable as...more
Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
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
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
Campbell Soup Co. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Gamon Plus, Inc.’s design patents D612,646 and D621,645. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and determined that Campbell Soup did not...more
Facebook filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against claims 1–8 of Uniloc 2017 LLC’s patent on Voice over Internet Protocol. Meanwhile, an IPR proceeding was already pending on claims 1–6 and 8 of the same patent,...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Earlier today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1, 2, and 4-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,409,862 unpatentable as either...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), finding a patent on a method of disinfection obvious. The reversal was based in part on a finding that the Board’s...more
In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., the Federal Circuit considered the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s application of objective indicia to design patent claims. The Board had found that the prior art has the same...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
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] 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...more
Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more
In Vidstream v. Twitter, the Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability of Vidstream’s patent in view of a book even though the copyright page of the version submitted had a later copyright date. Vidstream, LLC. v. Twitter,...more
Two PTAB decisions recently designated as informative show that failure to provide detailed evidence of motivation to combine references for an obviousness challenge, can sink a Petition before or after institution of trial....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Summary: Findings of fact at the PTAB must be supported by substantial evidence, and conclusory expert...more
Finding that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) assessment of reasonable expectation of success was not supported by substantial evidence, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s obviousness...more
On Thursday of last week in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corporation, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions (IPR2015-01584 and IPR2015-01600) finding that a single claim in...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that the patent owner could not establish an earlier date of invention based on evidence originating from the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) non-obviousness determination because substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s finding that a person of skill in the art would...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that diligence towards reduction to practice may be established by a showing of reasonably continuous activity. ATI Techs. ULC v. Iancu, Case Nos. 2016-2222, -2406,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
Appealed PTAB decisions are generally accorded a deferential “substantial evidence” standard by the Federal Circuit. However, this deference did not prevent Ericsson from prevailing in its appeal to the Federal Circuit to...more