Filewrapper

Inherent anticipation – Is the phenotype exhibited by a transgenic plant an inherent feature?

By Brian D. Keppler, Ph.D.

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. If a prior art reference expressly sets forth each of the elements of a claim, then there is typically little question of whether or not the […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Revives SynQor Patent

By Julie L. Spieker

On February 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that SynQor’s US Patent No. 7,072,190 was unpatentable. SynQor’s ‘190 patent relates to technology that converts DC current from one voltage to another for use in large computer systems and data communication equipment. […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit affirms introduction of evidence in IPR petitioner’s reply briefs

By Joseph M. Hallman

On November 25, 2020, in VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) holding evidence introduced by the petitioner in a reply brief of an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, after the petition had been […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Reinstates Patent Claims Previously Found Obvious by Patent Trial and Appeal Board

By Julie L. Spieker

On July 31, 2020, in the precedential opinion Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter the “Federal Circuit”) reinstated three claims of Alacritech’s patent, holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter the “Board”) did not adequately support its finding that the asserted prior art […]

Continue Reading →

PTAB Makes Broadest Interpretation on Estoppel in IPRs

Drafting post grant proceeding petitions needs to be done carefully due to their limited space. Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) further increased the pressure to use the limited number of words effectively when Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc. (Case IPR2018-01002) was entered. Kingston, the petitioner, attempted to file […]

Continue Reading →

An IPR Appellant Must Establish an Injury to Have Standing

By Blog Staff

In JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. Ltd., Appeal No. 2017-1828 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dismissed an inter partes review (IPR) appeal due to lack of standing. The requirement for an appellant to establish an injury in fact remains firm. JTEKT petitioned for an […]

Continue Reading →

PTAB to Consider When Conference Materials are Prior Art

By Blog Staff

In a consolidated appeal from two related Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the PTAB’s findings. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion that challenged claims would not have been obvious over two specific references. However, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s determination that […]

Continue Reading →

In Re: Durance

By Blog Staff

In In Re: Durance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) ruling affirming an examiner’s obviousness rejection of a patent application related to a microwave vacuum-drying apparatus and method. The CAFC remanded for consideration of the applicants’ reply-brief arguments because they were properly […]

Continue Reading →

Inter Partes Review Proceedings (IPRs) Do Not Violate Article III of the Constitution per U.S. Supreme Court

By Jonathan L. Kennedy

The U.S. Supreme held in a 7-2 decision (Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts dissenting), Oil States Energy Servs. V. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, that the Inter Partes Review proceedings, commonly referred to as IPRs, do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The Court was deciding two primary constitutional challenges: (1) whether IPRs violate […]

Continue Reading →

PTAB Opinion Provides Reminder that Indefiniteness Rejections Must Establish a Prima Facie Case

By Jonathan L. Kennedy

In a recent USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) opinion, the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection as the it failed to establish a prima facie case of indefiniteness. InEx Parte Kimura, Appeal No. 17-1293 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2018), the claims were rejected for reciting, “normal pumping operation.” The rejection stated the term was […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up