News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Claim Construction Anticipation

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 1, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court: Incorporation by Reference for Purposes of Anticipation Requires More than a Parenthetical

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Anticipation Analysis for Product-By-Process Claims

In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision holding that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (“the ’176 patent”) was not inherently...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

USPTO Confirms Different Frameworks for Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Prior-Art Determinations

On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., No. 2022-1387, 2022-1492 (Fed. Cir. Sept 1, 2023)

This case addresses the validity of two patents asserted against wireless communications technologies. In particular, this case discusses claim construction and post-issuance claim amendments that broaden the scope of...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2023 #3

Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Post-SAS: PTAB Is Obligated to Hear Non-Instituted Grounds

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) exceeded its authority and deprived the patent owner of due process by belatedly considering a non-instituted ground in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the...more

Knobbe Martens

Duncan Parking Technologies v. IPS Group, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk and Taranto. Consolidated Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Southern District of California. Summary: A person is a joint inventor of the anticipating...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2019 #2

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2018

Knobbe Martens on

The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more

Knobbe Martens

TF3 Limited v. TRE Milano, LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was...more

Jones Day

Anticipation by Combining Elements from the Four Corners of a Reference

Jones Day on

In a January 12 article, Anticipation Requires More Than A Reference That Discloses All The Elements, we discussed the Microsoft Corp v. Biscotti, Inc. case, where the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the PTAB finding...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB: Summaries of Key 2017 Decisions

In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more

Jones Day

PTAB Reversed For Giving Process Step In Product Claims No Weight

Jones Day on

Whether a process step in product claims is afforded patentable weight has been an issue gaining more attention recently. The Federal Circuit weighs in on the topic in In re Nordt Dev. Co., LLC, No. 2017-1445, 2018 WL 774097...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Extrinsic Evidence Can Be Used to Support Inherent Anticipation

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that the challenged claims were anticipated and obvious. Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Case No....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Reverse or Remand: What is the proper remedy on appeal where the Board fails to carry its burden?

Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248...more

Jones Day

Anticipation Requires More Than A Reference That Discloses All The Elements

Jones Day on

In Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., Nos. 2016-2080, -2082, -2083, 2017 WL 6613262 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2017), a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that Microsoft failed to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In both HTC v. Cellular and Microsoft v. Biscotti, the Circuit affirms rare IPR determinations that all of the claims of the patents at issue are not invalid. In Travel Sentry v. Tropp, the Circuit vacates summary judgment in...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Factual Findings Required to Show “Apparent Reason to Combine”

Addressing issues of obviousness and anticipation in the context of an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions with respect to the same patent, vacating and remanding the...more

23 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