Federal Circuit declines to consider constitutionality of BPAI judge appointments, affirms rejection In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit decided a case involving both obviousness and the Appointments Clause relating to allegedly unconstitutional appointment of members of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The court determined that appellants failed to timely raise the issue of the constitutionality of the Appointments Clause by not presenting it […] Continue Reading →
Prior court decision of no invalidity based on prior art reference doesn’t bar reexamination The Federal Circuit recently construed the scope of the revised reexamination statute, 35 U.S.C. § 303, specifically what is required for a "substantial new question of patentability." In this case, the relevant reference was cited during the initial examination of the application that led to the patent under reexamination, but as a supporting reference. The […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms USPTO’s interpretation of inter partes reexamination statute In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that the USPTO's interpretation of the inter partes reexamination procedure was correct, and therefore that all patent applications (other than reissue applications) filed after November 29, 1999 are eligible for inter partes reexamination, even if priority is claimed to an application filed before […] 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 →
USPTO not bound by district court claim construction on reexamination; obviousness affirmed The Federal Circuit today addressed claim construction and obviousness in the context of a reexamination appeal. The patentee argued that the USPTO was bound, in reexamination, to apply the claim construction given the patents by a district court when the patents were in litigation before reexamination. The court found that because the USPTO was not […] Continue Reading →