Archive | America Invents Act

Patent Obviousness and Reasonable Expectation of Success

The Federal Circuit has (mostly) sustained the PTAB’s findings that claims of US Patent No. 7,433,483 are obvious over prior art, explaining that obviousness under 35 USC § 103 required, in essence, a showing that the proposed combination of references would result in an improvement, even if not the best possible improvement. Slot Speaker Technologies, […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Rejects Secondary Considerations for Patentability

Even though there was no dispute that a commercially successful product encompassed challenged patent claims, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a patent owner failed to show secondary considerations of non-obviousness.  Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Case IPR2015-01781; Patent 8,827,028 B2 (PTAB Jan. 30 2017).  The Patent Owner, the PTAB […]

Continue Reading

Some Business Methods Are Routinely Found Patent-Ineligible

A Federal Circuit panel needed one line to agree that a claims in a business method patent were patent-ineligible under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Corp. and 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In America’s Collectible Network, Inc. v. The Jewelry Channel, Inc., No. 2016-1521 (Fed. Cir. Jan 11, 2017), a three judge panel (Dyk, Taranto, and […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Construes Patent Claim Terms as Subject to §112 ¶6 in IPR

The USPTO’s PTAB held that the term “drive module” was a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (now 112(f))  in its decision to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation, IPR2016-01372 (January 11, 2017). The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) raised the §112(6) issue sua […]

Continue Reading

Judge Robinson Revisits IPR Estoppel, Seeking Federal Circuit Clarification

A district court recently reaffirmed its ruling that statutory estoppel does not apply to grounds of invalidity that could have been included in a petition for an inter partes review but weren’t, clearing the way for the defendant to raise those grounds of invalidity against the patent at trial. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Indefiniteness Standard Is Different than the Federal Circuit’s

In Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, PGR2015-00018 (Dec. 30, 2016), the PTAB found the phrase “substantially filled” indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) on post-grant review (PGR). In the course of reaching this conclusion, the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) explained that the USPTO uses a different standard than the federal courts to […]

Continue Reading

Post Grant Review and Section 112: A Curious Case

In a case where it strikingly relied on prior art sharing a specification with the patent at issue, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated the patent on several grounds, including lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019 (PTAB December […]

Continue Reading

Another Reason Why Ex Parte Reexaminations May Not Be the Best Way to Challenge Patent Claims

Despite the defendant’s diligence in seeking an ex parte re-examination of the patent-in-suit by the USPTO shortly after being sued, a district court has denied the defendant’s motion for a stay.  Pro-Troll, Inc., v. Shortbus Flashers, Inc., No. 16-cv-04062-VC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2016).   The court’s reasoning included in an interesting comparison of ex parte […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes