A claimed rule feature may not be anticipated and/or rendered obvious merely because the rule is satisfied by chance in a reference
| August 29, 2018
In re Facebook
August 14, 2018
Before Prost, Moore, Stoll. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
The CAFC reversed and remanded a PTAB decision, which had affirmed an Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejection of a patent application for a method of arranging images contiguously in an array. The CAFC held that anticipation of Applicants’ claimed rule is not established by an example in a cited reference, which just happens to satisfy Applicants’ claimed rule, since said rule is not satisfied all of the time in the cited reference.
Standing to Appeal an Adverse IPR Decision to the CAFC
| August 16, 2018
JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd.
August 3, 2018
Before Prost, Dyk and O’Malley. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary:
JTEKT Corporation (“JTEKT”) instituted an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patentability of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,215,440 (“the ‘440 patent”), owned by GKN Automotive (“GKN”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued an adverse decision regarding claims 2 and 3, holding that JTEKT did not show that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious over the prior art of Teraoka in view of Watanabe. JTEKT appealed the adverse decision to the CAFC. The CAFC dismissed the appeal, finding that JTEKT lacks standing to appeal.
A patent specification need enable full scope of the claimed invention
| August 10, 2018
Trustees of Boston University. v. Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
July 25, 2018
Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for JMOL that claim 19 of the asserted patent is invalid for failing to meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification fails to enable full scope of the claimed invention.
A catalog disclosed at an event not open to the public may still be considered a prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
| August 8, 2018
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC
July 27, 2018
Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) found a catalog distributed during a trade show targeting dealers as opposed to the public can still be considered a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The CAFC stated that the dealers encompassed the relevant audience such that a person ordinarily skilled and interested in the art exercising reasonable diligence should have been aware of the show. Additionally, there were no restrictions placed on the dissemination of the publication, and the catalog was intended to reach the general public. The CAFC therefore vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision and remanded for the Board to consider the merits of the petitioner’s obviousness claims.
連邦巡回控訴裁判所（CAFC）は、販売業者のみが参加可能な展示会で配布されたカタログでも、先行技術文献となると判決した。展示会は、一般に向けたものではなかったものの、販売業者は、当該技術関連者（relevant audience）に含まれ、合理的なデリジェンスの下、当業者や当該技術に関心がある者は、その展示会について知り得たであろうと判示した。また、カタログには配布制限が設けられていなかったため、一般に配布されることを意図した物であったと示した。よって、CAFCは、特許審判部の判断を破棄し、カタログが先行技術文献であるとした上で、自明性について検討するように、審判部に本件を差し戻した。
Post-filing clarification of an ambiguous feature in a pre-filing reference is not sufficient to establish inherent properties of the feature in the earlier publication
| July 31, 2018
Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions et al. v. Custopharm Inc.
July 16, 2018
Before Moore, Linn and Chen. Opinion by Chen.
Summary
Custopharm argued that Endo’s patents were invalid due to anticipation or obviousness of three features of a drug and its administration: the dosage, the content of the vehicle, and the administration schedule. The arguments regarding the dosage were rejected on the grounds that they relied on a lesser-used industry treatment guideline. The arguments regarding the vehicle were rejected on the grounds that they relied on an improper inherency position, and that it would not have been obvious to modify the vehicle in view of a reference teaching a similar vehicle in a different context. Finally, the arguments regarding the administration schedule were rejected on the grounds that they relied upon an unsupported claim construction position, as well as an improper combining of the teachings of two references.
To read, or not to read an unrecited limitation into a patent claim, that is a question
| July 26, 2018
Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics, Inc.
July 16, 2018
Before Prost, Moore and Reyna. Opinion by Moore. Dissenting opinion by Reyna.
Summary
Finding no suggestion in the specification or prosecution history that the disputed unrecited limitation is important in any way that would merit reading it into the patent claim in dispute, the Federal Circuit vacated district court’s entry of judgment of noninfringement based on the contrary claim construction, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Dissenting opinion expressed totally opposite view on the issue, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Spray your way to non-obviousness: Patents directed to intranasal delivery of migraine drugs not obvious where prior art would have resulted in reduced efficacy
| July 11, 2018
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Lannett Holdings, Inc.
June 28, 2018
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary
This case involved a “close” question of obviousness that was ultimately decided in no small part by the perceived relative credibility of the parties’ experts. The Federal Circuit deferred to the district court’s preference for the patent owner’s expert, and consequently, the district court’s determination that, where the efficacy of a drug’s active ingredient depended not on itself, but on its more potent metabolite, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to pursue a proposed combination of the prior art that would reduce the metabolite’s production.
One More Bite at Overcoming a Denial of a Motion to Amend
| June 22, 2018
Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc.
June 19, 2018
Before Prost, Moore and Stoll. Opinion by Moore.
Summary
This precedential opinion highlights some of the complicated issues which can arise in an IPR, particularly in light of recent precedent of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) and Aqua Products Inc. V. Matal, 872 F. 3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The decision also lets us know that there will be more developments with IPR practice down the road, such as whether the Board may consider combinations of references not argued by the petitioner in opposing a motion to amend, and if so, what procedures consistent with the APA are required to do so.
The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s application of the time-bar under § 315(b) and the obviousness determination
| June 20, 2018
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, ION International S.A.R.L. (collectively, “ION”); In re WesternGeco, LLC.
May 7, 2018
Before Wallach, Chen and Hughes. Opinion by Chen.
This is the latest Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in a series of patent litigations since 2009. In this case, the CAFC reviewed two main issues appealed from six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions.
Firstly, the CAFC reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision regarding the time-bar determination. Under § 315(b), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “may not institute an IPR where the petition ‘is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, the real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.’” However, the PTAB found that ION was not sufficiently close to the third party, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS”), “such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” Thus, there was no privity between ION and PGS, and the time-bar was not applicable here. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision and this case was reviewed on the merits.
Secondly, the CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s determination of obviousness in the IPRs. Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction because WesternGeco’s argument relied on a part of the specification which only described preferred embodiment and could not rebut the PTAB’s rationale. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (the “’520 Patent”), the CAFC said the PTAB’s obviousness determination was correct because WesternGeco failed to show evidence of impermissible hindsight to prove obviousness. As for U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 (the “’967 Patent”), the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision because the PTAB showed substantial evidence of obviousness which WesternGeco could not rebut. Also, WesternGeco did not show a nexus between the ’967 and ’520 Patents’ claims and any objective evidence of nonobviousness. The CAFC fully affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion.
Japanese Summary
本件は2009年に始まった特許訴訟で争われた一連の訴訟の最新のCAFC判決であり、CAFCは6つのIPRから控訴された2つの争点について判断した。
第一の争点は米国特許庁審判部(PTAB)による特許法第315条(b)項のTime-barの判断の正否であった。特許法第315条(b)項は、米国特許商標庁は、申立人、利害関係のある実際の当事者(real party in interest)、又は申立人と当事者関係(privity)のある者が当該特許の侵害を主張する告訴を受けた日から1年を超えて申立がなされた場合、IPRを開始することはできないと規定している。本件では、PTABは、ION社はPGS社のIPRの結果に拘束されるほど十分にPGS社と密接な関係をもっていないので、ION社とPGS社の間に当事者関係がないとした。CAFCはPTABの判断を支持し、本件の実体的事項を検討する(on the merits)とした。
第二の争点は、先のIPRにおけるPTABの自明性判断であった。607特許に関しては、WesternGeco社が自社の主張に引用した明細書の箇所は、実施例を述べているだけであり、PTABの解釈を反駁できなかったので、CAFCはPTABのクレーム解釈を認めた。520特許については、WesternGeco社は、PTABが「不当な後知恵(impermissible hindsight)」を用いたという証拠を示さなかったので、CAFCはPTABの自明性の判断を支持した。967特許については、PTABは自明である明白な証拠を示しており、WesternGeco社はそれに反論できなかった。さらに、WesternGeco社は967特許と520特許のクレームと、非自明性の証拠の因果関係(nexus)を示さなかったのでCAFCはPTABの解釈を支持した。
The Definiteness Standard for AIA Trials is Still Undecided
| June 7, 2018
Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp.
May 30, 2018
O’Malley, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by O’Malley.
Summary:
This case is an appeal from a final decision from the PTAB in a Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) finding that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 are indefinite applying the In re Packard standard for definiteness. Tinnus Enterprises LLC (“Tinnus”) argued that the Nautilus standard for definiteness is the proper standard, but that the claims are definite under either standard. The CAFC declined to decide which definiteness standard is correct for a PGR at the USPTO. The CAFC instead held that the claims are definite under either standard, and thus reversed the PTAB’s decision of invalidity due to indefiniteness.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
