IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Patent Trial & Appeal Board
Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board's Posts

RIP for POP: PTO Updates Interim Director Review Procedures

by | Aug 3, 2023 |

On July 24, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that a revised interim Director Review (DR) process and Appeals Review Panel (ARP) process will replace the Precedential Opinion Panel Process. Updates to the interim DR process include the following:

  • Expanding the process to permit parties to request DR of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions on institution in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings
  • Providing updated guidance as to what types of issues the Director will consider in DR, as well as additional guidance on several topics, such as the initiation of DR at the sole discretion of the Director (sua sponte DR), remands to Board for further proceedings and the Director’s sanction authority
  • Providing the Director with the option to delegate review to a new independent panel called the Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP)
  • Creating a new ARP, which may be convened by the Director sua sponte to review Board ex parte, reexamination or reissue appeal decisions.

Under the interim DR process, a party to a Board decision may now request DR of a Board decision, whether to institute trial, a final written decision or a decision granting a request for rehearing.

After a DR request is received and processed, the request will then be routed to an Advisory Committee that the Director has established to assist with the process. The Advisory Committee comprises 11 members and includes representatives from various PTO business units who serve at the discretion of the Director. A quorum of seven members is needed for the committee to meet. The Advisory Committee may include members from the following business units:

  • Office of the Under Secretary (not including the Director or Deputy Director)
  • The Board (not including members of the panel for each case under review)
  • Office of the Commissioner for Patents (not including the Commissioner for Patents or any persons involved in the examination of the challenged patent)
  • Office of the General Counsel
  • Office of Policy and International Affairs.

The Director will review each request for DR; the underlying decision, including the associated arguments and evidence; and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The Director will then determine whether to grant or deny review or delegate a decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP). The DRP will be selected from among the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Vice Chief Judges and Senior Lead Judges of the Board, excluding judges who served on the original panel for the case under review or otherwise have a conflict with the case. An appellant can request a rehearing of a DRP decision or appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

An ARP that consists of the Director, the Commissioner for Patents and the Chief Judge of the Board has now been created. The panel may be convened by the Director sua sponte to review ex parte, reexamination or reissue appeal decisions. Requests for ARP review will not be considered. ARP decisions are appealable to the Federal Circuit. An appellant may not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Need for Unnecessary RPI Determinations

by | Jul 27, 2023 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office Director partially vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s real-party-in-interest (RPI) determination because that determination was not necessary to resolve the underlying proceeding. Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.)

Unified Patents filed a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR) of a patent owned by MemoryWeb. In its petition, Unified certified that it was the only RPI. Prior to institution, both parties briefed whether Unified should have identified two third parties as RPIs under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). In its institution decision, the Board declined to determine whether the third parties were RPIs because there was no allegation in the proceeding of a time bar or estoppel based on there being an unnamed RPI, and therefore the proceedings would not have created a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 even if the third parties were included as RPIs.

After institution, MemoryWeb continued to argue that the Board should terminate the proceeding because of Unified’s alleged failure to name the third parties as RPIs while also arguing that in the alternative, the Board should find the two third parties estopped from challenging the validity of the claims at issue in two different IPRs covering the same patent. The Board then issued an order identifying the third parties as RPIs, explaining that it was now appropriate to determine whether the two third parties were RPIs “[b]ecause the issue of Section 315(e) estoppel has been put before us [as relevant to the subsequent IPR challenges filed by the third parties], and we now have a complete factual record available to fully address the RPI question, and to avoid unnecessary prejudice to Patent Owner.” The Board also explained that it was now necessary to determine whether the third parties were RPIs in the case at hand to determine whether they would be estopped in a subsequent proceeding.

Unified filed a request for Director review of the Board’s RPI determination. Unified argued that the panel erred by issuing a non-binding advisory opinion on RPI that prejudiced the third parties by prejudging the RPI issue without their participation and where the decision could bind them in their later-filed proceedings. Unified also cited the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja v. iRobot, arguing that the Board should not resolve an RPI issue when it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 in the proceeding.

The Director concluded that the Board can and should determine the RPIs or real parties in privity in a proceeding where that determination may impact the underlying proceeding, including (but not limited to) a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) that might apply. However, the Director determined that such was not the situation here since determining the RPI issue was not necessary to resolve the proceeding. The Director, therefore, vacated the Board’s RPI determinations.



read more

No Snipe Hunting: AIA Adherence Means No Interference (Proceedings)

by | Jul 27, 2023 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that patents and applications that have only ever contained claims with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013—i.e., pure America Invents Act (AIA) patents—may not be subjected to an interference proceeding by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director. SNIPR Techs. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., Case No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) (Chen, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.)

SNIPR Technologies owns a family of five patents directed to methods of selectively killing bacteria using clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene editing. SNIPR was involved in an interference proceeding with Rockefeller University, which filed a patent application for technology also directed to selectively killing bacteria. The SNIPR patents claimed priority to a Patent Cooperation Treaty application filed on May 3, 2016, thus placing the SNIPR patents squarely within the scope of the AIA. The Rockefeller application claimed priority to, among other things, a US provisional application filed on February 7, 2013, making the Rockefeller application a pure pre-AIA application. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board initially declared an interference between claims 20 to 33 of the Rockefeller application and all claims of the SNIPR patents. The Board ultimately identified Rockefeller as the senior party and canceled all of SNIPR’s claims. SNIPR appealed.

The issue before the Federal Circuit was whether the Board had the authority to cancel SNIPR’s pure AIA claims for lack of invention priority under pre-AIA § 102(g), and more broadly, whether pure AIA patents may, as a matter of law, be part of an interference proceeding.

First, the Federal Circuit examined the plain language of AIA § 3(n) and the statutory purpose and history of the AIA. The Court reasoned that “AIA § 3(n) makes clear that [unless Congress provides otherwise,] only pure pre-AIA and mixed patents may be part of an interference.” As the Court stated, AIA § 3(n)(1) does not permit the AIA’s amendments to apply retroactively and the AIA repealed the statutory grant of power to hear interferences (pre-AIA § 135), instead providing for derivation proceedings.

Next, the Federal Circuit addressed Rockefeller’s and the Director’s arguments that the statutory language of pre-AIA § 135(a) authorizes the Director to declare an interference for “any unexpired patent”—including unexpired pure AIA patents. Unpersuaded, the Court concluded that pre-AIA § 135(a), read in conjunction with the AIA, excludes pure AIA patents for the following reasons:

  • The AIA replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings.
  • The AIA deleted all other references to interferences.
  • The AIA repealed the first-to-invent system of patentability, rendering interference proceedings superfluous.
  • Permitting interferences for pure AIA patents would subject AIA patents to interferences “for over twenty years after the AIA’s effective date,” which would be contrary to the purpose of the AIA—to implement the first-to-file system of patentability.

Moreover, such a statutory construction would belie AIA § 3(n)(2), which expressly allows for interferences for mixed patents (i.e., patents and applications that contain, or contained at any time, at least one claim with [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Reissue Boat Won’t Float: “Original Patent” Rule Sinks New Floating Grill Claims

by | Jul 20, 2023 |

Addressing the same invention requirement for reissue patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to reject an overly broad reissue application. In re Float‘N’Grill LLC, Case No. 22-1438 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2023) (Prost, Linn, Cunningham, JJ.)

Float‘N’Grill (FNG) owned a patent directed to a floating device that supports a grill so that users can grill food while in water. The patent’s specification lays out a single embodiment, illustrated in Figure 1 below, which includes a float (20) that has two supports (46, 48), each of which “includes a plurality of magnets” (60) so that the grill can be removably attached to the float:

FNG filed a reissue application that claimed new ways to “more generically” removably attach a grill to the float. In rejecting the reissue claims, the Examiner found that three of the new requested claims required zero magnets, three claims required one magnet, and one claim did not specifically require magnets but referred to a magnet in the preamble. This was in contrast to the issued patent’s only embodiment, which required multiple magnets. The Examiner, therefore, rejected the reissue claims for failure to meet the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. The Board affirmed. FNG appealed.

The question on appeal was whether FNG’s newly requested claims complied with § 251. The Federal Circuit explained that the only path to expanding the coverage of an issued patent is through a reissue application, which is subject to § 251’s limitations. Pertinent here, § 251 requires reissue claims to be directed to the same invention disclosed in the original patent. Citing Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, the Court described the “original patent” requirement as a question of whether the issued patent’s disclosed invention “on its face, explicitly and unequivocally describe[s] the invention as recited in the reissue claims.”

Turning to FNG’s reissue claims, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board, finding that the new claims were not directed to the same invention as the original patent and thus failed to satisfy § 251. The Court explained that the specification of FNG’s issued patent had just one embodiment, which featured “a plurality of magnets” to removably attach a grill to the floating device. The reissue claims, however, contemplated more general attachments without magnets.

FNG argued that its claims were acceptable under § 251 because the magnets were a “non-essential embodiment” of the invention. The Federal Circuit disagreed for four reasons:

  1. An element of a patent may be deemed essential even if the patent does not explicitly state as much. Thus, the magnets were essential to FNG’s original patent, even if not labeled so.
  2. It is irrelevant that a person of skill in the art may know to replace an original patent element with “some other undisclosed mechanism” to reach the same result. Here, a new way to attach a grill to the [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Hit a Nerve? Obviousness Inquiry Must Address Claims at Issue

by | Jul 20, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board non-obviousness decision, finding that the context of the proposed combination of prior art in the Board’s obviousness inquiry was not directed toward the context of the claim at issue. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 21-1451 (Fed Cir. July 10, 2023) (Lourie, Dyk, Taranto, JJ.)

Axonics filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of two patents owned by Medtronic as obvious. During the IPRs, the Board analyzed two prior art references, an article titled, “Electrical Stimulation of the Trigeminal Nerve Root for the Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain” by Ronald Young and a patent assigned to Gerber. The Medtronic patents described percutaneously positioning a lead to stimulate the sacral nerve. By contrast, Gerber described positioning an electrode in the sacral nerve region in a non-percutaneous way, and Young described positioning an electrode percutaneously to stimulate the trigeminal sensory root. The Board found that Medtronic’s patents were not obvious over Young in view of Gerber because of lack of motivation to combine the two prior art references. The Board also noted “that the proposed combination ‘would not be feasible in the trigeminal nerve region.’” Axonics appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred in conducting the obviousness analysis. The Board’s proposed analysis centered on Young’s trigeminal sensory root context, not the Medtronic patents’ sacral nerve context. First, the Board questioned whether motivation to use the resulting combination of Young and Gerber existed in the trigeminal nerve context, but not in Medtronic patents’ sacral nerve context. Second, the Board found “that the relevant art [of the Medtronic patents] is medical leads specifically for sacral neuromodulation.”

Addressing the first error, the Federal Circuit explained that the prior art combination must be directed toward meeting the requirement of the claimed patent, not the requirement of the first prior art. The Court found that the Board did not conduct this analysis. Addressing the second error, the Court noted that “the relevant art” of the Medtronic patents was not “limited to medical leads for sacral-nerve stimulation.” The Court examined the specification of the patent as well as its claim and ruled that the scope of the Medtronic patents was broader than what the Board concluded.

The Court found that the Board’s errors were not harmless since the Board relied on these errors in rejecting Axonics’s obviousness arguments and provided no other reason for concluding Medtronic’s claims were not obvious. Therefore, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further consideration.

Practice Note: In considering obviousness arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103, keep in mind the difference between the claim at issue and the considered combination of prior art. The scope of the claim also needs to be considered based on the entirety of the patent.

Woohyeong Cho, a summer associate in the Washington, DC, office, also contributed to this case note.



read more

Coons and Tillis Introduce Two Bills Intended to Change Patent Landscape

by | Jul 13, 2023 |

In late June 2023, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced two bills in Congress that, if enacted, would change the patent adjudication landscape:

The PREVAIL Act is essentially a reintroduction of the previously unsuccessful STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 bill and would change fundamental aspects of how the Board operates. Under current practice, the Board judges who rules on institution and also decides the outcome of an instituted proceeding. Under the PREVAIL Act, institution decisions would be made by a separate set of judges from those that render a decision on a petition’s merits. Through proposed changes to the initiation and estoppel provisions, a patent challenger could bring its attack on patent validity in either the district court or the Board, but not both. And as part of the harmonization of district court and Board proceedings, the PREVAIL Act would adopt the “clear and convincing” standard for Board review and codify existing Board practice of applying the same claim construction standard as district courts apply.

The PREVAIL Act would also change who can bring issues to the Board by imposing standing and revised real-party-in-interest requirements. An IPR petitioner would have to establish standing equivalent to that required for a district court declaratory judgment action. Moreover, anyone who financially contributes to an IPR would be deemed a real party in interest to avoid multiple petitions backed by the same entity. To reduce the multiplicity of proceedings, the PREVAIL Act would establish a presumption against a joinder for time-barred petitions. The PREVAIL Act also includes several provisions directed to the independence and transparency of the Board’s decision-making, including establishing a code of conduct and requiring recordation of the Director’s actions that affect Board proceedings.

Turning to subject matter eligibility, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act would overrule Supreme Court decisions importing a judicial exception to Section 101 and would codify many of the existing categories of ineligible subject matter, including mathematical formulae; substantially economic, financial, social, cultural and artistic practices (in other words, fundamental human activity); natural processes and products made independent of human activity; and mental processes. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act specifically would authorize early resolution and limited discovery on Section 101 ineligibility.

Practice Note: Although both acts have been introduced before without much success, Congress’s present focus on technology (such as artificial intelligence) may serve to propel one or both bills forward. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Congress has an appetite for modifying patent law, particularly in the lead-up to an election year.



read more

Amending a Range? Better Enable It

by | Jul 13, 2023 |

In a post-grant review appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that patent claims reciting a range must enable the full scope of that range and, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Patent Trial & Appeal Board is not bound to decisions rendered in a Preliminary Guidance. Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A., Case No. 22-1165 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2023) (Dyk, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

Medytox owns a patent directed to the use of animal-protein-free botulinum toxins with long-lasting effects. Galderma challenged the validity of Medytox’s patent in a post-grant review. In response to the challenge, Medytox filed a motion to amend the patent under the Board’s Pilot Program, which allows a petitioner to amend the patent claims and receive a preliminary decision as to whether the amendment would preserve the patent’s validity (Preliminary Guidance). Medytox proposed modifying the claims so that they only encompassed treatment methods that possessed a patient response rate of “50% or greater.” Galderma opposed the motion, arguing that claiming a 50% to 100% response rate constituted new matter, meaning the claim language improperly claimed an invention that was not described in the patent application as filed.

The Board issued a Preliminary Guidance construing the new claim language and explaining that it did not believe that Medytox’s amended claims represented new matter. According to the Board, the new limitation did not “necessarily” claim a range of 50% to 100% and instead could just be claiming 50% or greater. The Board explained that since the patent contained the concept of a greater than 50% response rate, claiming that rate was not new matter. As a consequence of the Board’s positive reception, Medytox amended all the claims to include the new language. Galderma once again opposed the motion and further argued that the amended claims were not enabled. The Board held an oral hearing and questioned the parties on the proper construction of the “50% or greater” claim language.

In its final written decision, the Board decided that the limitation was a range of 50% to 100%, contrary to its statement in the Preliminary Guidance. Because the claimed limitation was a range, the Board—citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi and the Federal Circuit’s 2012 decision in Magsil v. Hitachi Global Storage—explained that the entire range must be enabled. The patent, however, only described a response rate of up to 62%, so the Board found that the claimed range was not enabled. Medytox appealed.

Medytox alleged three errors. First, Medytox argued that the Board’s new construction was wrong. Second, Medytox argued that the claims were enabled. Finally, Medytox argued that the Board violated the APA by capriciously departing from its Preliminary Guidance. The Federal Circuit rejected Medytox’s arguments and affirmed the Board’s decision.

First, the Federal Circuit determined that there was no meaningful difference between the two possible constructions—claiming a response rate greater than 50% was essentially the same as claiming a response rate of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

First Rule of the PTAB? Play by the Rules

by | Jun 22, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and found that the claims lacked written description support. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case Nos. 22-1269; -1270 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2023) (Lourie, Bryson, Reyna, JJ.)

Parus Holdings owns two patents related to an interactive voice system to request information from a voice web browser. Google (among others) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patents.

During the IPR proceedings, the Board found that a publication (Kovatch) was prior art to the challenged patents. In reaching that decision, the Board declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence of an earlier conception and reduction to practice because they were only presented via incorporation by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). The Board ruled that Parus failed to meet its burden of production on antedating.

The Board also found that the publication of the application to which Parus’s challenged patents claimed priority (Kurganov-262) was prior art because the common specification failed to provide written description support for the challenged claims. Parus appealed the Board’s decision, raising two main arguments.

First, Parus contended that the Board erred when it declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence on antedating. Parus argued that § 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition on incorporation by reference did not warrant the Board’s decision because Parus, as patent owner, need not have submitted a response at all. Parus also argued that the Federal Circuit’s 2017 decision in Aqua Products mandates that the Board consider all record evidence, regardless of the manner of presentation. The Federal Circuit rejected Parus’s arguments in turn.

Regarding Parus’s violation of the incorporation by reference rule, the Federal Circuit explained that Parus had assumed an affirmative burden of production when it chose to submit a response to antedate Kovatch. Along with that burden came other responsibilities, such as complying with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rules and regulations, including § 42.6(a)(3). The Court further explained that this burden of production could not be met without some combination of citing evidence with specificity and explaining the significance of the cited material. Parus did neither.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Parus’s argument that the Board is required by law to review all evidence in the record. The Court clarified that, while its Aqua Products holding requires the Board to decide all issues properly before it, nothing in Aqua Products requires the Board to review evidence or issues not introduced or introduced in violation of the Board’s rules. As the Court noted, “[t]he burden of production cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence. One cannot reasonably expect the Board to sift through hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, to find the relevant facts.”

Parus also argued that the Board exceeded its statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Under High Pressure: New Mechanism of Action Can’t Save Drug Administration Claims

by | Jun 22, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board ruling that method claims reciting a mechanism of action triggered by the co-administration of two known antihypertensive agents were obvious over the cited prior art. In re Couvaras, Case No. 22-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) (Lourie, Dyk, Stoll, JJ.)

This case arose out of applicant John Couvaras’s prosecution of patent claims reciting a method of increasing prostacyclin release in the systemic blood vessels to improve vasodilation in a human with essential hypertension by co-administering two therapeutic agents. During prosecution, Couvaras conceded that the two claimed therapeutic agents had been known as essential hypertension treatments for many decades. The examiner agreed, citing 10 references as confirmation. The examiner further found that the physiological results of co-administering the two therapeutic agents were not patentable because they naturally flowed from the claimed administration of the known antihypertensive agents.

Couvaras appealed to the Board, arguing that the increased prostacyclin release was unexpected and that objective indicia overcame any existing prima facie case of obviousness. The Board disagreed, ruling that the increased prostacyclin release was inherent in the obvious administration of the two known antihypertensive agents and that no evidence existed to support a finding of any objective indicia. Couvaras appealed.

Couvaras raised three arguments on appeal:

  1. The Board erred in affirming that a skilled artisan would have had motivation to combine the art.
  2. The claimed mechanism of action was unexpected, and the Board erred in discounting its patentable weight by deeming it inherent in the claimed method.
  3. The Board erred in weighing objective indicia of non-obviousness.

With respect to motivation to combine, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the art supplied sufficient motivation to combine because the claimed therapeutic agents were known for decades to treat hypertension, finding the Board’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that Couvaras had forfeited a related argument for no reasonable expectation of success by failing to first raise that challenge to the Board.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Couvaras’s argument that the claimed mechanism of action was unexpected and therefore entitled to patentable weight. Couvaras argued that the Board downgraded the patentable weight of limitations drawn to the antihypertensive agents’ mechanism of action by deeming them to be merely inherent. According to Couvaras, even if the recited mechanism of action was inherent in the claimed administration of the two agents, that mechanism was unexpected because the increased prostacyclin release was unexpected and could not be dismissed as having no patentable weight due to inherency.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that Couvaras was attempting to claim a mechanism of action that naturally flows from the co-administration of two known antihypertensive agents and that “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.” The Court allowed that while mechanisms of action may not always meet the most rigid standards for inherency, “[r]eciting the mechanism for known compounds [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The Best Option Is Obviously Not the Only Option

by | Jun 22, 2023 |

Following a jury verdict finding infringement of two patents and awarding $2.2 billion, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board issued a final written decision finding all claims in one of the asserted patents invalid. The Board explained that an asserted prior art combination only needs to be a suitable option, not the best option. Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, Case No. IPR2021-01229 (June 13, 2023) (Giannetti, McNamara, Melvin, APJs).

In March 2021, a jury found that Intel infringed two patents owned by VLSI. On July 7, 2021, Patent Quality Assurance filed an inter partes review petition against all claims of one of the patents Intel was found to infringe. The Board instituted review. After institution, Intel filed an identical petition and motion for joinder, both of which were granted.

The challenged patent is directed to a method of determining the minimum operating voltage for integrated-circuit memory, storing the value of that voltage in nonvolatile memory, and using the value to determine when an alternative power-supply voltage may be switched to the memory to ensure that the minimum operating voltage is met. Intel challenged the claims of the patent based primarily on a combination of three prior art references.

VLSI raised numerous arguments for why the combination of prior art references did not teach the claimed invention. VLSI argued that a skilled artisan would not have had reason to regulate the power supply voltage of one reference with the voltage regulator of another. VLSI asserted that there would have been no need to use the switching mechanism if voltage regulation was available from the outset. The Board disagreed and quoted the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2022 decision in Intel v. Qualcomm, which stated that “a petitioner is required to show only that there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability of making the combination, not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.”

The Board reiterated this theme in response to another of VLSI’s arguments. VLSI contended that a person of skill in the art would not have combined the prior art disclosure of a system for determining minimum operating voltages and storing them in nonvolatile memory with a reference that uses SRAM, a type of volatile memory commonly used as an alternative to nonvolatile memory. The Board again noted that “there is no requirement that an asserted combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”

Given the jury’s verdict and damages award in the district court case, VLSI also argued that the jury’s verdict showed commercial success and was objective indicia of nonobviousness. As part of its analysis, the Board reiterated that the nexus between the alleged commercial success and the asserted patent claims must be both embodied by the commercial product and coextensive with them. The Board went on to find that “the record before [the Board] does [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES