Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded a district court decision after concluding that a jury instruction on the objective indicia of nonobviousness that failed to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in determining that an operating manual did not qualify as printed...more
Volvo Penta appealed from a Board decision finding all of its claims unpatentable as obvious. The claims at issue covered a tractor-type stern drive for a boat. Volvo Penta raised three main issues on appeal, arguing (1) that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board non-obviousness decision, finding that the context of the proposed combination of prior art in the Board’s obviousness inquiry...more
Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1373, -1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023) In appeals from two inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on related patents, the Federal Circuit...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of non-obviousness from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of a design patent owned by GM. While non-precedential, this decision is nonetheless a valuable read because...more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
Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2020-1289, -1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision in consolidated IPRs that two...more
In a relatively unusual outcome, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision finding non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR). Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a finding of non-obviousness of certain claims relating to a device for the detection of skin cancer, finding that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board erred in applying...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
LIQWD, INC. v. L'OREAL USA, INC. Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from...more
Experienced PTAB practitioners know that, in an IPR, assuming each claim element is in the asserted prior art, the rubber meets the road on the reason-to-combine arguments. In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster, LLC, the Federal...more
HENNY PENNY CORPORATION v. FRYMASTER LLC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: With respect to secondary considerations of nonobviousness, nexus may be...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, a district court determined that the claims covering a method of using the drug everolimus to treat kidney cancers were not obvious. The court found a motivation to "pursue"...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
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: When the ranges identified in a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Summary: Objective indicia of nonobviousness cannot be dismissed merely because all...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
In a non-precedential decision issued in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., v. Warner Chilcott Co. LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness ruling as being improperly grounded in hindsight. This decision...more
In Nidec v. Zhongshan, the entire panel affirms a determination of obviousness but two judges question whether § 315(c) of the AIA was improperly used to permit joinder as to a second Zhongshan petition filed after the...more