Latest Posts › Patent Invalidity

Share:

Deleted Specification Portions Undermine Claim Construction

FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC - Before Moore, Chen, and Barnett. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The district court erred by construing a claim term based on disclosures made in a provisional application and...more

Applicant Admitted Prior Art Can (Sometimes) Show Obviousness

SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more

Silence Is No Support for Negative Claim Limitation

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. V. HEC PHARM CO., LTD. Before Moore, Hughes, and Linn (dissenting). Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary:  Silence regarding the presence or...more

A Standalone Obviousness Reference Must Be Enabling to Invalidate

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

Avoiding Ineligibility by Claiming a Specific Implementation That Improves upon the Prior Art

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll.  Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not...more

5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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