News & Analysis as of

Obviousness POSITA Appeals

McDermott Will & Schulte

Construing Unambiguous Claim Language and Qualifying Challenged Expert as POSITA

Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more

Knobbe Martens

An Expert Witness Need Not Have Been a Posita at the Time of the Invention

Knobbe Martens on

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An expert witness can testify from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention even if they...more

Knobbe Martens

Unforced Error: An IPR Challenger Cannot Rely on an Error That a Posita Would Have Corrected

Knobbe Martens on

LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION INC. Before Stoll, Cunningham, and Newman, Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a reference contains an “obvious”...more

Knobbe Martens

Finite Methods as a Ground for Obviousness

Knobbe Martens on

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Because a mapping technique must be performed on either a...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Federal Circuit Issues Opinion on "Inherent Obviousness" in Patent Claim, Invalidating Orange Book Listed Pharma Patent

Key Points - Federal Circuit issued precedential opinion in Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC that affirmed obviousness of a liquid drug patent claim, encouraging future patent challengers to raise the issue of...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #4

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Appeal No. 2018-2361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Unsupported Expert Testimony Isn’t Enough to Establish Motivation to Combine

McDermott Will & Schulte on

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

Jones Day

Mere Similarity Between References is Insufficient Rationale for Obviousness

Jones Day on

On May 8, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of inter partes review in William Wesley Carnes, Sr., Inc. v. Seaboard Int’l Inc., No. IPR2019-00133, holding that the mere fact that prior art references...more

Smart & Biggar

Year-end Round-up: Notable Canadian Patent Cases of 2018

Smart & Biggar on

Earlier this month we published an exhaustive review of the life sciences and regulatory cases in the Canadian courts, and decisions on the merits for the year are summarized in our in our Rx IP Update 2018 Highlights in...more

Jones Day

Post-Priority Document Usable As Evidence of POSITA Motivation

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more

Knobbe Martens

Yeda Research And Development Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more

11 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