In Voice Tech Corp v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that the challenged claims of Voice Tech’s patent were unpatentable for obviousness, determining that the PTAB’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. At issue were claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,491, 679, which relates to use of
In Virtek Vision Int’l. ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed in part the PTAB’s final written decision in an IPR petition filed by Assembly Guidance, on the basis that the petition failed to identify a motivation to combine elements present in the prior art, stating that: “A reason for combining must exist.” Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., 97 F.4th 882, 888 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Court determined that Assembly Guidance had failed to provide any reasoning why one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the disclosures of the prior art references, and therefore did not show that the challenged claims were unpatentable.Continue Reading Give Me ONE Reason: Federal Circuit Requires At Least One Reason for Motivation to Combine
As discussed in a recent post, On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, significantly impacting design patent law. The court overturned the long-standing Rosen–Durling test, a two-part test used to assess the obviousness of design patents. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for patent practitioners and clients alike.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Abandons Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness
In LKQ v. GM, a May 21, 2024 en banc decision on an appeal of an IPR final written decision determining that the challenged claim of GM’s U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625 (directed to the design for a vehicle front fender) was not obvious, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision, overruling the Rosen–Durling test for obviousness of design patents and articulating general guidance for a new obviousness test it determined was more consistent with Supreme Court authority, in particular the “flexible standards” applied in Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 (1893), Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reframes Test for Obviousness of Design Patents
Can a defendant who prevails in an exceptional patent infringement suit by invalidating the patent in inter partes review (IPR) recover its associated Patent Office-related attorney’s fees? A split three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit recently said no in Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Networks LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1621, -1777, Slip Op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024) (“Dragon V”). This blogsite previously discussed (link) several instances where courts, including the Federal Circuit, have authorized this recovery when the Patent Office proceedings substituted for aspects of the district court litigation between the same parties. How then did this two-judge majority conclude otherwise?Continue Reading Federal Circuit Holds Recoverability of Attorney’s Fees Does Not Extend to AIA Trials
The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Office’s decision to reject claims in four separate reexamination cases due to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 22-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023). This decision is important because it expands ODP, a doctrine judges developed long ago, when patents
On June 30th, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for re-hearing en banc in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC.[1] LKQ, an auto parts repair vendor for GM, successfully petitioned for inter partes review of GM’s design patent for a front fender design,[2] arguing it was anticipated by a prior art reference (Lain) and obvious over Lian alone or in combination with a brochure for the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. The PTAB ultimately affirmed the patentability of GM’s claimed design, prompting LKQ to appeal to the Federal Circuit. On appeal, LKQ argued that the PTAB’s obviousness analysis utilized tests overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR, and, as such, the obviousness standard for design patents should mirror the standard for utility patents set forth in KSR. However, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit disagreed, noting in relevant part that “it is not clear the Supreme Court has overruled” the tests for obviousness applied by the PTAB.Continue Reading Federal Circuit to Decide Whether KSR Applies to Design Patents
Can a petitioner’s reply in an IPR proceeding present new arguments and evidence responding to a proposed claim construction first raised in the patent owner’s response? In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023), the Federal Circuit answered in the affirmative, vacating the PTAB’s final written decision of
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Patent Office implemented an interim process for the Director to review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in AIA trials. The Office sought public feedback on the process last year (link) and received more than 4,000 responses (link)! The process has yet to be formalized via traditional notice and comment rulemaking, though someday, perhaps, it will. Until then, the Patent Office continues to offer new updates and information, most recently on July 24, 2023.Continue Reading PTAB Updates and Expands the Director Review Process and Offers Transparency in Ex Parte Appeals
The Patent Office is not supposed to issue separate patents for the same invention to competing inventors. Several statutory provisions empower the Office to reject pre-AIA patent application claims of the later inventor. But sometimes it’s not clear who is the later inventor. Those provisions are therefore unhelpful. So, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board administers an increasingly rare proceeding called an “interference” to assesses which inventor was the last to invent. Through this proceeding, the Office cancels as unpatentable (under pre-AIA 35 USC § 102(g)) the claims of the inventor the Board determines was last to invent.Continue Reading Patent Interferences May Not Involve Pure AIA Patent