Non-Prior Art Evidence Helps Sink Three Patents in IPR Proceeding
| October 18, 2018
Yeda Research and Development v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
October 12, 2018
Before Reyna, Bryson and Stoll. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
This precedential opinion highlights that use of non-prior art in an inter partes review (IPR) does not violate 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.)
An Evidentiary Ruling and a Finding of Likelihood of Confusion Against a Pro Se Litigant’s Trademark
| October 15, 2018
Zheng Cai, DBA Tai Chi Green Tea Inc., v. Diamond Hong, Inc.
August 27, 2018
Before Prost, Wallach and Hughes. Opinion by Wallach.
Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reviewed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) opinion of the cancellation of Zheng Cai, doing business as Tai Chi Green Tea Inc.’s (“Mr. Cai”, pro se appellant) trademark, petitioned by Diamond Hong, Inc. (“Diamond Hong”). The court reviewed the three prongs of “DuPont factor” test and found the TTAB’s opinion regarding likelihood of confusion was correct. Mr. Cai did not rebut the argument and the CAFC affirmed the TTAB’s opinion.
Japanese Summary
連邦巡回区控訴裁判所(CAFC)における本判決は、米国特許庁商標部審判部(TTAB)による商標登録取り消し決定に対する控訴判決である。
TTABでは、Diamond Hong社がTai Chi Green Tea Inc.社としてビジネスを行っているCai Zheng氏の所有する商標登録の取り消しを申立てた。TTABは申立てを認め、商標取り消し決定を下した。Cai氏は本人訴訟で取り消し決定を不服とし、CAFCに控訴した。Cai氏は当該商標はDiamond Hong社の商標との混同のおそれはないと反論したが、CAFCはDuPont factorsテストの3項目について再検討し、TTABの決定を支持した。
Tags: “DuPont Factors” Test > Likelihood of Confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)
NAI torpedoes own patent with faulty §120 priority
| October 9, 2018
Natural Alternatives v. Iancu
October 1, 2018
Before Prost, Moore and Reyna. Opinion by Prost.
Summary:
Natural Alternatives International (“NAI”) asserted USP 8,067,381 (“the ‘381 patent” against Woodbolt Distributers, LLC (“Woodbolt”). The ‘381 patent asserted priority back to a parent, USP 5,965,596 (“the ‘596 patent”) filed in 1997. Woodbolt filed a request for inter partes reexamination asserting that the §120 priority chain was broken by an intermediate patents assertion of priority only to a provisional application filed in 2003. The Examiner and Patent Board agreed and rejected the claims of the ‘381 patent in view of the ‘596 patent as prior art. NAI appealed the Board’s decision. The CAFC affirmed the Examiner and Board on the basis of faulty §120 priority.
Parker Vision on Functional Claim Limitations
| September 28, 2018
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
September 13, 2018
Before O’Malley, Reyna and Taranto. Precedential Opinion by O’Malley, joined by Reyna and Taranto.
Summary:
Qualcomm filed three inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of claims of ParkerVision’s U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940 (the ‘940 patent) based on obviousness. ParkerVision appealed the PTAB’s decision holding apparatus claims of the ‘940 patent as being obvious, and Qualcomm cross-appealed the PTAB’s decision holding method claims of the ‘940 patent as being not obvious. On the one hand, the CAFC affirmed that the apparatus claims were invalid, denying ParkerVision’s argument that Qualcomm had not identified conditions in which the prior art device would operate to perform a function of generating “a plurality of harmonics” within the apparatus claim, explaining that only the capability to perform the function is required for an apparatus claim. On the other hand, the CAFC affirmed that the method claims were not invalid, denying Qualcomm’s cross-appeal for failing to provide any argument or evidence as to why a person of ordinary skill would have selected operating conditions that would cause the prior art to perform the function of creating “a plurality of harmonics” as claimed.
Whose Burden Is It?
| September 19, 2018
DuPont, Archer Daniels v. Synvina
September 17, 2018
Before Lourie, O’Malley and Chen. Opinion by Lourie, joined by O’Malley and Chen.
Summary:
DuPont and ADM filed an inter partes review petition against Synvina’s ‘921 patent that claims a method for making 2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid (FDCA), which is useful as bio-mass. The Board ultimately held that DuPont had failed to prove that the ‘921 patent was obvious over the prior art. On appeal, the CAFC reversed, finding that the Board had incorrectly failed to shift the burden of production, from DuPont to the patentee Synvina and had misapplied the standard for finding whether variables are result-effective.
The public use bar may not be triggered even if the invention is tested publicly prior to the critical date
| September 14, 2018
Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Company
July 10, 2018
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary:
The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding of experimental use that negates application of the public use bar by Polara because Polara’s activities were necessary to ensure that the invention would work for its intended purpose and Polara’s invention was “a life safety device” that the testing was “imperative.” The Federal Circuit found that while it is undisputed that Polara did not enter a confidentiality agreement, Polara maintained the secrecy of the invention. Finally, the Federal Circuit found that Polara was not commercially exploiting its invention during the test periods.
Tags: §102 > confidentiality agreement > critical date > experimental use > filing date > public use
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。
« Previous Page — Next Page »
