Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was prior art, the Board has an obligation to resolve fundamental testimonial conflicts. Google petitioned for inter partes... read more →
Sep
21
Sep
21
Commissioner’s Exercise of Vacant Director’s Duties Does Not Violate Appointments Clause Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2140 Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: During vacancies of the Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,... read more →
Sep
21
The Heightened Standard of Proving Induced Infringement Roche Diagnostics Corporation v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, Appeal No. 21-1609, the Federal Circuit held that a finding of induced infringement requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, which can be established by a finding of ‘willful blindness,’ a standard of... read more →
Sep
21
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
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 →