Contributors: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP PTAB: Applicant-Admitted Prior Art Out of Bounds in IPR, If Used as Basis for Challenge by Karina J. Moy & Rubén H. Muñoz Apr. 29, 2022 Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Inter Partes Review, 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) In an inter partes... read more →
Sep
21
Sep
21
District Court Granted Judgment on the Pleadings Because the Patents Recited Patent-Ineligible Mathematical Techniques Executed in an Aircraft Flight Control System by C. Brandon Rash & Brooks J. Kenyon May 2, 2022 District Court, Abstract Ideas, 35 U.S.C. § 101 Judge Orrick in the Northern District of California recently granted... read more →
Sep
21
Voluntary Nature of IPR Proceedings Forecloses Attorney’s Fees, According to District Court by Megan R. Mahoney, Jason Weil & Rubén H. Muñoz Jun. 14, 2022 District Court, Inter Partes Review, 35 U.S.C. § 285 A district court recently denied a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where... read more →
Sep
21
USPTO: Compelling Evidence of Unpatentability Forecloses Fintiv Denial by Megan R. Mahoney, Daniel L. Moffett & Rubén H. Muñoz Jun. 29 '22 Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patent Litigation, Inter Partes Review The USPTO recently issued new guidance on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will apply Apple... read more →
Sep
21
by Frederic M. Douglas and James E. Hawes This column highlights some of the more notable recent online notices, newsletters, and blogs dealing with IP prosecution issues. Patently-O – a patent law blog – Patentlyo.com * Nonce words and Means Plus Function Claims – You usually want to avoid Section... read more →
May
10
Contributors: Knobbe Martens Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing that the overlapping range is actually taught by the prior art.... read more →
May
10
Intrinsic Evidence Trumps Plain and Ordinary Meaning In Astrazeneca Ab v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 21-1729, the Federal Circuit held that for purposes of claim construction, intrinsic evidence can trump the plain and ordinary meaning of scientific conventions such as significant figures. AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (collectively,... read more →
May
10
A Generic Motivation Is Still a Motivation In Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Appeal No. 20-1664, the Federal Circuit held that a “generic” motivation to combine that has broad appeal or applicability is not deficient so long as it is supported by more than conclusory expert testimony. Intel requested inter... read more →
May
10
Contributors: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Silence May Support Negative Claim Limitation In Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. Appeal No. 21-1070, the Federal Circuit held that a patent application that was silent about a “loading dose” of a drug provided written description support for a negative claim... read more →
May
10
Indefiniteness Is Not Determined by the Claim Language Alone In Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc. Appeal No. 20-2257, the Federal Circuit held that it was improper for the district court to find patent claims indefinite without considering the specification and prosecution history. Nature Simulation Systems, Inc. (“NSS”) sued... read more →