Tag Archive: federal circuit

Dec 22

Unreasonable Claim Construction Causes PTAB Reversal

  In a fairly case-specific claim construction analysis, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB today in D’Agostino v. Mastercard, Int’l, 2016-1592, -1593 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016), finding that the Board erred in determining the challenged claims to be unpatentable because, as a matter of logic, the prior art could not anticipate or render those claims. The patent …

Continue reading »

Dec 13

PTAB Reversed on Issue of Diligent Reduction to Practice

Perfect Surgical Techniques (PST), Inc. owns US 6,030,384 (‘384). Olympus petitioned for inter partes review of ‘384 as anticipated or obvious over JP H10-33551 (JP ‘551). JP ‘551 published less than one year before the ‘384 priority date, and therefore JP ‘551 was only art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a). PST offered a Rule 131 …

Continue reading »

Nov 17

In re NuVasive Brings the Administrative Procedure Act to IPRs

NuVasive owns US 8,187,334, which claims certain spinal implants. Medtronic filed a petition challenging various claims of the ‘334 patent as obviousness over US 2002/0165550 (Frey) in view of US 5,860,973 (Michelson). Medtronic also filed a second petition challenging other claims over a promotional brochure for the Synthes Vertebral Spacer-PR (SVS-PR) in view of Michelson. …

Continue reading »

Nov 11

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Evidentiary Challenge in IPR, Reversing PTAB

More often than not, evidentiary issues in IPR proceedings fail to make headlines because the Board will structure its Final Written Decision to avoid evidentiary challenges. Findings that a party’s motion to exclude is denied as moot are common. That makes the Federal Circuit’s decision in REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj (November …

Continue reading »

Nov 10

Federal Circuit Rejects Patentee’s Effort to Narrow Claim Scope

One wrinkle of IPR practice is that patentees are often in the position of advocating a narrower claim scope than the challenger—just the opposite of what is usually seen in district court litigation.  The narrowing strategy is logical—particularly where there is very close prior art, a patentee may need to seek a narrow construction in …

Continue reading »

Sep 01

PTAB Reversed Based on Non-Analogous Art Theory

Although In re Natural Alternatives LLC (Fed. Cir. August 31, 2016) is not an IPR appeal, it should be of interest to those who care about IPRs and PGRs because it reflects a successful appeal from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) involving the fairly rare issue of non-analogous art. Natural Alternatives (NA) owns US …

Continue reading »

Aug 30

Federal Circuit Demonstrates Willingness to Rein in PTAB’s Onerous Idle Free Rules Regarding Claim Amendments

Patentees have been generally frustrated with the Board’s unwillingness to grant motions to amend. The Board’s Idle Free case, and its progeny, have added a number of requirements to a motion to amend that are above and beyond the simple requirements set forth in the IPR implementing statute. While the Federal Circuit has, generally, stated that …

Continue reading »

Aug 16

“Substantial Evidence” Hurdle is Substantially Difficult to Overcome

One of the less appreciated hurdles to a successful appeal of a Final Written Decision in an IPR proceeding is the “substantial evidence” standard of review the Federal Circuit applies to the Graham factors that underlie a determination of obviousness.  Although the ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal issue subject to de novo review, the …

Continue reading »

Aug 05

Federal Circuit Provides Ammunition to Patentees In Magnum Decision

Patent Owners gained a bit of a reprieve in the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In Re Magnum Oil Tool Int’l, Ltd., decided on July 25, 2016. In several key respects, Patent Owners regained some footing in the otherwise daunting IPR process. As an initial matter, in one of its first post-Cuozzo (Supreme Court edition) decisions, the …

Continue reading »

Jun 22

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Propriety of New Evidence Adduced During IPR Trial

In Genzyme Therapeutics v. Biomarin Pharma., the Federal Circuit considered what sort of notice and opportunity to be heard in an IPR will satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA,” 5 U.S.C. § 554(b) & (c)). Genzyme owns US 7,351,410 and US 7,655,226, which both concern methods of treating Pompe’s disease. When Biomarin petitioned for IPR …

Continue reading »

Older posts «