Latest Posts › Obviousness

Share:

Keeping PACE With CRISPR

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Adopts a New Test for Design Patent Obviousness

Before Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more

Identical Elements Are Not Required for the Presumption of Obviousness Based on Overlapping Ranges

ALMIRALL, LLC v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges applied where a...more

Enforcing a Patent Known to be Invalid Can Trigger Attorneys’ Fees

ENERGY HEATING, LLC v. HEAT ON-THE-FLY, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. Summary: Enforcing a patent with knowledge that it is invalid can...more

Authentication of Prior Art in an IPR Does Not Require Testimony

VALVE CORPORATION v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For purposes of authenticating a prior art reference in IPR proceedings, the Board...more

Concrete Plans Establish Standing for IPR Appeals

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more

Eligibility for CBM Review Is Not Appealable

SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35...more

Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds

NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY - Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A...more

Patent Owner Arguments Do Not Limit the Scope of the Issues the Board May Address in Its Final Written Decision

FANDUEL, INC. v. INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC - Before Dyk, Moore, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if it institutes trial...more

10 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