AIA Archives - Page 3 of 7

Arthrex Extended to Inter Partes Re-examination

by Paul Devinsky | May 27, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing regarding the constitutionality of decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), holding that its decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (IP Update, Vol. 22, No. 11) also applies to final decisions issued by administrative patent judges (APJs) in inter partes re-examinations. Virnetx v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 19-1671 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2020) (O’Malley, J.). The Court also denied (per curiam) a concurrently filed petition for rehearing en banc.

(more…)

The “Plotting” Thickens: Claims that Solve Known Problem with Known Methods Are Obvious

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 14, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied KSR and its obviousness progeny, finding that patent claims directed to location plotting were obvious under 35 USC § 103. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., Case No. 19-1164 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020) (Prost, CJ).

X One sued Uber Technologies asserting a patent directed to exchanging location information between mobile devices, such that a user could add other mobile device users to a “Buddy List,” share her location with listed buddies or temporary “instant buddies,” and see the locations of her buddies on a map. The patent’s purported novelty lay in “two way position information sharing,” creation of location sharing “groups,” and “temporary location sharing” that “automatically expires.”

(more…)

“Waive” Goodbye to Belated Argument that Administrative Patent Judges’ Appointment is Unconstitutional

by Paul Devinsky | May 14, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

Addressing whether a party can waive a challenge to the constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs’) appointment, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the issue is non-jurisdictional and therefore waivable. Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Case No. 19-2117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (O’Malley, J.) (reissued as precedential May 5, 2020).

(more…)

PTAB Time Bar Application in Instituting IPR Proceedings Nonappealable

by Paul Devinsky | May 7, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme Court of the United States held that application of the time bar by the PTAB is nonappealable. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, Case No. 18-916 (Supr. Ct. Apr. 20, 2019) (Ginsburg, Justice) (Gorsuch, Justice, joined in part by Sotomayor, Justice, dissenting). The Court explained that an appeal based on the PTAB’s application of the time bar for filing an IPR petition is prohibited under 35 USC § 314(d), which states that the PTAB’s decision on institution “shall be final and nonappealable.”

(more…)

Article III Standing Required to Appeal Final Decisions by the PTAB

by Mandy H. Kim | May 7, 2020 | Patents

Addressing the issue of Article III standing in an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal because the party appealing failed to establish an injury sufficient to confer standing. Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., Case No. 18-2273 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2020) (Moore, J.).

(more…)

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply to AIA Challenges

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | May 7, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that while assignor estoppel prevents a party that assigned a patent to another party from later challenging the validity of the assigned patent in district court, it does not preclude the party from challenging the validity of the assigned patent in an America Invents Act inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Case Nos. 19-2054; -2081 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (Stoll, J.) (Stoll, J., additional views).

(more…)

Neither AIA Proceeding nor Government Infringement Constitute Fifth Amendment Taking

by Paul Devinsky | Apr 30, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a US Court of Federal Claims dismissal, rejecting arguments that patent infringement is a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Golden v. United States, Case No. 19-2134 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) (O’Malley, J.).

(more…)

Emmy Award to the Rescue – Secondary Considerations Overcome Prior Art

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 30, 2020 | America Invents Act

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), in a decision designated as precedential, found that a Patent Owner’s substitute claims were patentable in view of evidence of secondary considerations even though the prior art weighed in favor of obviousness. Lectronics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case No. IPR2018-01129 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (Deshpande, APJ.) (designated precedential on Apr. 14, 2020).

(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…)

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…)

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS