Patents Archives - Page 56 of 101

Claims Need Only Inform a Skilled Artisan of the Metes and Bounds with Reasonable Certainty

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

In a case involving claims with functional language and means-plus-function limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in its determination that three claim terms were indefinite, but agreed with the district court that a fourth term was not indefinite. Nevro Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., Case Nos. 18-2220; -2349 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) (Moore, J.).

Nevro owns patents for improved technologies for high-frequency spinal cord stimulation therapy to alleviate pain, while avoiding side effects associated with conventional stimulation therapies. Several of the asserted claims recite systems and devices in which the stimulation therapy signals are “paresthesia-free,” meaning they do not cause a tingling, pins-and-needles sensation. The district court found the claimed “paresthesia-free” systems and devices to be indefinite because infringement of the claim depends on the effect of the system on the patient, so a skilled person cannot understand the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Nevro appealed.

(more…)

Prima Facie Obviousness Established Where Claimed pH Range Overlaps with Prior Art Range for Similar Compounds

by Mandy H. Kim | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment that found a patent was not obvious because the claimed pH range would not have been obvious-to-try despite overlapping ranges between the claimed pH range and the pH range for similar prior art compounds. Valeant Pharms. Intl. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Case No. 18-2097 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Lourie, J.).

(more…)

Claimed Process Not Anticipated by Third-Party’s Prior Secret Use

by James M. Oehler | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

Declining to extend the public-use bar to third-party commercial uses of secret processes, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling that found a patent invalid under the “known or used by others,” “on-sale” and “public-use” bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102. BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co. et al., Case No. 19-1243 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Lourie, J.).

BASF owns a patent on a process for preparing certain polymers. The claimed polymerization process allows easy removal of “sticky” polymers from walls of the tubular reaction vessel by including a conical taper with specific dimensions at the bottom of the vessel. BASF filed a patent infringement suit against SNF, who in turn alleged that the prior art “Sanwet” process invalidated the patent. The Sanwet process was developed in Japan by Sanyo and licensed to third-party Celanese for use in the US prior to the patent’s critical date. Sanyo provided substantial technical support to help Celanese with the process. Celanese was required to keep the Sanwet process confidential and could only disclose information to employees on a need-to-know basis. Employees were also required to sign confidentiality agreements.

(more…)

Federal Banks are “Persons” Under the AIA

by Amol Parikh | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Federal Reserve Banks of several cities are “persons” under the America Invents Act (AIA) and therefore may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA. Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta et al., Case No. 19-1018 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) (Moore, J.).

Bozeman owns two patents directed to methods of authorizing and clearing financial transactions to detect and prevent fraud. The Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, San Francisco and St. Louis filed a petition for covered business method (CBM) review of several claims of Bozeman’s patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ultimately found the challenged claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Bozeman appealed.

(more…)

Lights Turned Out on Validity Finding

by Yoshiko Ito | Apr 23, 2020 | Patents

Finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) anticipation and obviousness decisions resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the claim language and a misunderstanding of case law, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision and remanded for further consideration. Technical Consumer Products v. Lighting Science Group Corp., Case No. 19-1361 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Stoll, J.).

(more…)

With Notice and Opportunity to Respond, PTAB May Raise New Patentability Issues Based on Art of Record

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 23, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

In an opinion concerning the notice provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may identify a new patentability issue regarding proposed substitute claims based on prior art of record—but must first notify the parties and provide an opportunity to respond. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Case No. 20-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) (Stoll, J.).

The decision is part of a long-running battle between Nike and Adidas that began in 2012, when Adidas filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent owned by Nike. Nike subsequently filed a motion to cancel the existing claims and substitute new claims. Particularly relevant is a new claim that recites a knit textile upper element of a shoe containing “apertures” that can be used to receive laces and that are “formed by omitting stitches” in the knit textile.

(more…)

Voluntary Dismissal Does Not Preclude Attorney’s Fees under Rule 54(d)

by Irene Lé Azcarraga | Apr 15, 2020 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of attorney’s fees, finding that voluntary dismissal with prejudice constituted a final judgment for the purposes of FRCP Rule 54(d) under Ninth Circuit law. Keith Mfg., Co. v. Butterfield, Case No. 19-1136 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) (Hughes, J.).

(more…)

Bad Faith Required to Prevent Speech Regarding Potential Patent Infringement

by Lisa P. Rumin | Apr 15, 2020 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction enjoining a patent holder from making claims of patent infringement without finding that those infringement claims were made in bad faith. The Federal Circuit reversed, vacated and remanded the district court’s decision. Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, Case No. 2019-2374 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020) (O’Malley, J.).

(more…)

Exercise of Institution Discretion During Parallel AIA and District Court Challenges

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 15, 2020 | Patents

The Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) refused to revisit an earlier PTAB panel decision, reiterating that it remains within the discretion of a PTAB panel to deny institution on a patent challenge because of a pending trial in federal district court. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, Case No. IPR2019-01393, Paper 18 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2020) (Iancu, Dir.; Hirshfeld, Comm’r; Boalick, CAPJ, sitting as POP); Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, Case No. IPR2019-01393, Paper 19 (PTAB Apr. 7, 2020).

(more…)

PTAB Sets Double Standard for Qualifying Reference as “Printed Publication”

by Paul Devinsky | Apr 15, 2020 | Patents

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated an appeal decision as precedential, holding that an examiner may apply a lower standard for establishing public availability of a prior art reference as compared to a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Ex parte Grillo-López, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (USPTO Jan. 31, 2020) (Chang, APJ) (denying request for rehearing) (designated as precedential on April 7, 2020). The PTAB determined that the examiner had sufficiently established a prima facie case that a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) transcript qualified as a printed publication, even though the PTAB had previously found that a petitioner in an IPR proceeding had failed to qualify the same FDA transcript as a printed publication. The PTAB held that during prosecution, the examiner must establish only a prima facie case, and the burden then shifts to the applicant to come forward with rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. This differs from an IPR proceeding, where the petitioner must come forward with sufficient arguments to show, at the institution stage, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.

(more…)

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS