Post-KSR obviousness arguments cast sufficient “doubt” on validity to vacate preliminary injunction In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction entered in the Northern District of Ohio enjoining the selling and copying of a product used to practice a method claimed in a patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit utilized of the traditional four–factor test for preliminary injunctions and specifically analyzed the first […] Continue Reading →
When market entry fee part of damages for patent infringement, permanent injunction inappropriate In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of infringement of a patent relating to the detection and classification of Hepatitis C Virus, but remanded the case for a determination of anticipation. In arguably the most interesting aspect of the decision, the court vacated the permanent injunction entered against the defendant. The plaintiff […] Continue Reading →
Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of two patents by two defendants. The court also reversed an invalidity ruling of one of one claim that had been the subject of reexamination, but remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the obviousness of one claim based […] Continue Reading →
Prior art addressing different problem shows what was “common knowledge,” obviousness affirmed In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of all claims subject to reexamination as obvious. The USPTO had rejected the claims based on a combination of three prior art references. The court provided an expansive discussion of obviousness post-KSR. The court noted that where the Federal circuit had gone wrong in KSR […] Continue Reading →
USPTO publishes post-KSR obviousness examination guidelines The USPTO guidelines for obviousness rejections post-KSR appear in today's Federal Register. The full guidelines can be found here, and are similar to the draft guidelines that surfaced some time ago. In a nutshell, examiners will officially have seven rationales upon which an obviousness rejection may rely: Combining prior art elements according to known methods […] Continue Reading →
Finding of infringement of two patents affirmed, one reversed, damages award vacated In a highly anticipated recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of infringement against Vonage with respect to two Verizon patents, holding that the district court did not err in its construction of the disputed claim terms and that the claims were not obvious. With respect to a third patent, the Federal Circuit held […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit makes previous nonprecedential obviousness opinion precedential Today the Federal Circuit decided to change the status of Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc. (previously blogged about here), from nonprecedential to precedential. This is noteworthy because this was one of the first obviousness cases decided by the Federal Circuit after KSR, and dealt specifically with one of the Graham factors: the level of […] Continue Reading →
Purified stereoisomer of compound in known mixture obvious in light of expected potency In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's pre-KSR decision of nonobviousness. The claims were directed toward a particular isomer of a compound that was "substantially free" of other isomers. The prior art included a mixture that included the claimed isomer as well as a different isomer. The court found the claims […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms finding of no anticipation or obviousness, no mention of KSR to be found The Federal Circuit yesterday affirmed a decision by the District Court for the District of Delaware upholding the validity of Reissue Patent 34,712 ("the '712 patent") and the injunction preventing infringement of the '712 patent. Specifically, the court affirmed the district court's decision that the prior art reference relied upon for the defendants' anticipation argument […] Continue Reading →
Reversible error if BPAI fails to consider rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness The Federal Circuit today vacated a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming an examiner's obviousness rejection. The inventors submitted three declarations evidencing the nonobviousness of their invention (unexpected results and teaching away), but the Board did not consider the evidence, finding that it related only to an intended use of the […] Continue Reading →