Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Memorandum to the Corps of Patent Examiners (the “Guidance”), attempting to provide clarity in the wake of the Federal Circuit’s highly anticipated en banc...more
Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory? In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded a district court decision after concluding that a jury instruction on the objective indicia of nonobviousness that failed to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in determining that an operating manual did not qualify as printed...more
Volvo Penta appealed from a Board decision finding all of its claims unpatentable as obvious. The claims at issue covered a tractor-type stern drive for a boat. Volvo Penta raised three main issues on appeal, arguing (1) that...more
Yita LLC petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by MacNeil IP LLC. This summary focuses on the proceedings on MacNeil’s patent relating to vehicle floor trays that “closely conform[]” to certain walls of the vehicle foot...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known...more
In this case, the Federal Circuit determined the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a nexus between objective evidence and non-obviousness; and to establish the objective indicia of copying....more
Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD. v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., CHILISIN AMERICA LTD. [OPINION] (2022-1873, 10/16/23) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham) - Stoll, J. The Court reversed the...more
Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1765 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2023) In its only precedential patent case of the week, the Federal Circuit held the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in...more
This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more
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
SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University, Appeal No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) Our case of the week addresses a wrinkle in the law concerning disputes between parties that filed patent applications...more
This article compares two recent Federal Circuit opinions concerning IPR cases addressing the nexus requirement for objective indicia of non-obviousness. These cases revolve around the patentee’s use of a commercial...more
On June 14, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upholding an Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims in U.S. Patent Application 15/131,442 (’442 application). The Federal...more
This decision addresses the PTAB’s secondary considerations analysis in an IPR Final Written Decision. Background - Appellant Yita sought inter partes review of two patents sharing a specification, both of which are...more
Following a jury verdict finding infringement of two patents and awarding $2.2 billion, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board issued a final written decision finding all claims in one of the asserted patents invalid. The Board...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1373, -1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023) In appeals from two inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on related patents, the Federal Circuit...more
FS.com Inc. v. Intern. Trade Comm., Appeal No. 2022-1228 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2023) Our case of the week focuses on patent enablement. In particular, the Federal Circuit considered the enablement requirement in the...more
A divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that certain challenged claims were nonobvious after applying the substantial evidence test to resolve a...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of non-obviousness from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of a design patent owned by GM. While non-precedential, this decision is nonetheless a valuable read because...more