CAFC emphasizes “would have motivation” in obviousness determinations from Inter Partes Reviews
| November 11, 2015
Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek, LLC
November 5, 2015
CAFC Panel and opinion author: Before Newman, Dyk and Taranto. Opinion by Taranto
Summary:
In an appeal from an Inter Partes Review, the CAFC rejected all claims of the ‘503 patent as being obvious over the prior art, emphasizing that the test for obviousness focuses on whether the skilled artisan would have a motivation to modify or combine the prior art disclosures to reach the claimed invention. The Court further upheld the authority of the Board to allow for consideration of a late filed Declaration by the Petitioner.
Digital data is not considered “article” within the meaning of Section 337
| November 11, 2015
Clearcorrect Operating, LLC, et al. v. ITC, et al.
November 10, 2015
Judges: Prost, Newman, O’Malley
Majority opinion by Prost
Concurring opinion by O’Malley
Dissenting opinion by Newman
Summary
The Congress enacted 19 U.S.C. §1337 (“Section 337”) to regulate international commerce, intending it to be an enforcement statute to stop at the border the entry of goods, i.e., articles, that are involved in unfair trade practices. In this case, the purported “article” found to have been imported was digital data that was transferred electronically. The CAFC’s majority opinion concluded that digital data is not considered “article” covered by Section 337, and therefore, ITC does not have jurisdiction over the case.
19 U.S.C. §1337（337条）は、侵害製品等、不公正な貿易に関わる製品を国境において差し止めることを目的とする、通商を規制する法律である。本件において、ITCは、電子的に米国内に輸入されたデジタルデータは特許を侵害しているため、337条違反が行われたと認定した。しかし、CAFCは、電子データは、337条の「製品（article）」の定義には当てはまらないとして、国境を越えて輸入された電子データは、ITCの管轄下ではないと結論付けた。
