News & Analysis as of

Appeals Motivation to Combine Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Conclusory Assertions Won’t Cut It: Federal Circuit Provides Further Insight into the Motivation to Combine Analysis

In Virtek Visions international ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., DBA Aligned Vision Nos. 2022-1998, 2022-2022 (Fed Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), the Federal Circuit reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Intertwining Nature of Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Hit a Nerve? Obviousness Inquiry Must Address Claims at Issue

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Sleep Better: Amendments Proposed during IPR Deemed Proper and Valid

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) finding that proposed amendments made during an inter partes review (IPR) are valid and proper despite the inclusion of...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022: Split Panel Weighs General Skepticism Differently in Obviousness Inquiry

In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Robotic Skepticism May Not Trump Motivation to Combine

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision finding the challenged claims patentable because the Board impermissibly rested its motivation-to-combine...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[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

McDermott Will & Emery

Even Judges Have a Boss: PTAB Must Sufficiently Articulate its Obviousness Reasoning

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the sufficiency of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) justification of its inter partes review (IPR) determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s obviousness...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Size Matters in Obviousness Analysis

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decisions, finding that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim terms relating to an...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Challenge to PTAB’s Finding of Non-Obviousness Fails to Pay Out

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in finding that a dependent claim was valid despite the patent owner’s lack of validity arguments beyond those...more

Sunstein LLP

Court’s Strict Interpretation of Timing Requirement May Force Patent Validity Challenges in Two Forums

Sunstein LLP on

The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Can You Hear Me Now? PTAB’s Reliance on Reference in Non-Instituted Ground Is Improper

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of obviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), concluding that the finding was based on a reference that was included only in a non-instituted...more

McDermott Will & Emery

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

McDermott Will & Emery 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

Knobbe Martens

Presumption of Nexus for Secondary Considerations Is Improper When a Commercial Product Includes Unclaimed but Functionally...

Knobbe Martens on

FOX FACTORY, INC. v. SRAM, LLC - Before Prost, Wallach, and Hughes.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Summary:  When a commercial product contains unclaimed features, a presumption of nexus between...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - November 2019: The Board's Reliance on Expert's Conclusory Statements May Not Meet Substantial...

In a recent precedential decision, TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a pair of USPTO inter partes review proceedings that invalidated all claims of two related U.S. patents because “the...more

Knobbe Martens

Evidence from Non-Instituted Grounds Not Permitted in Final Written Decision at PTAB

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE: IPR LICENSING, INC., - Before O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Establishing a motivation to combine two references for an obviousness determination in an IPR...more

McDermott Will & Emery

New Arguments in IPR Reply Are out of the Frying Pan, into the Fryer

McDermott Will & Emery on

On appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of non-obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a petitioner could not raise an “entirely new rationale” for combining two...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Motivation to Combine Where There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) non-obviousness determination because substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s finding that a person of skill in the art would...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: Skepticism of FDA Supports Finding of Nonobviousness and Patent Eligibility Not Within Scope of Appeal of an IPR

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding nonobvious the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”), which are directed to a method of treating cancer. The claims...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2019

Knobbe Martens on

PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Motivation to Combine Necessary Where Secondary Reference Only Explains Primary Reference

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness over a patent owner’s challenge to the “combination” of prior art, explaining that no motivation to combine...more

Knobbe Martens

Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2018

Knobbe Martens on

IPR Petitioner’s Initial Identification of the Real Parties in Interest Is to Be Accepted Unless and Until Disputed by a Patent Owner - In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583, the Federal...more

29 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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