Archive | America Invents Act

Broad Estoppel for IPR Petitioner Asserting Prior Art in District Court

Uncertainty over IPR estoppel continues. In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Products LLC, the Western District of Wisconsin recently ruled that grounds of invalidity left out of a petition for inter partes review are estopped and cannot be raised in district court—contrary to the rulings of other district courts. Civ. No. 14-cv-886-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. […]

Continue Reading

No CBM Patent Review for Delivering Files to a Cell Phone

A patent directed to wirelessly “delivering an audio and/or visual media file” was not a covered business method patent, leading the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to deny a petition to institute a covered business method review.  FaceBook, Inc. v. Skky LLC, Case CBM2017-00006, US Patent No. 9,215,310 (PTAB April 11, 2017).  Interestingly, […]

Continue Reading

Statutory Disclaimer Moots Covered Business Method Review

When a patent owner disclaims patent claims for which another party petitions for Covered Business Method Review, the petition is moot.  The rule is pretty clear on this point: “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a),” and “[n]o post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § […]

Continue Reading

PTAB: Internet Advertising Patent Not Subject to CBM Review

The PTAB has denied Google’s petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) review of an Internet advertising patent, finding that Google failed to show that the patent is directed to “performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” Google Inc. v. KlausTech, Inc., Case CBM2016-00096 […]

Continue Reading

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

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes