Subscribe to all posts by Jeremy R. Kriegel

PTAB Invalidates GUI, but Leaves Obviousness Test Gooey

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Obviousness, Post Grant Review, Sections 102/103
On February 9, 2023 the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Early Warning Services, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. WePay Global Payments LLC, determining the design claim of US D930,702 (“D’702”) unpatentable, as both anticipated and obvious based on a single reference, Reddy, US 2018/0260806 A1 (“Reddy”). See Consolidated PGR2022-00031 and PGR2022-00045, … Continue Reading

No design patents for you!–Extension of Fox Factory Complicates Reliance on Indicia of Non-Obviousness

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Gamon’s design patents on gravity-fed displays for soup were non-obvious. 10 F.4th 1268 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) (“Gamon II”). As the Supreme Court denied Gamon’s petition for writ of certiorari (in which Gamon argued it did not have … Continue Reading

PTAB Should Have Determined that Gravity Feed Display Design Patent is Obvious

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Appeals, Discovery, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision (discussed here) upholding the validity of Gamon’s design patent D621,645 (“the ‘645 patent”) for soup can display racks.  The court determined that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that Linz is not a … Continue Reading

Should I Stay or Should I Go? – Co-Pending IPR and Litigation Can Lead to Discovery Obligations

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Discovery, Stays, Trial Procedures
Fighting a war on two fronts is rarely an enviable strategic position. While district court judges do not always grant stays of patent infringement cases until resolution of co-pending inter partes reviews (IPR’s), accused infringers considering whether to request a stay of litigation should note the PTAB’s February 28, 2018, Order in Becton, Dickinson and … Continue Reading

It All Depends On How You Frame It

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Post Grant Review
Galaxia Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Revolution Display, LLC, PGR2016-00021, Galaxia sought post-grant review of Revolution’s U.S. Design Patent No. D736,750, entitled “Modular Video Support Frame Member.” The patented design was directed to a support frame for video monitors used in large-scale LED video image displays, such as those used on-stage at rock concerts, on the … Continue Reading

House of Cards: Weak Evidentiary Support Dooms IPR of Med Device Patent

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
On February 9, 2016, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., IPR2015-01660, the PTAB  refused to institute an IPR against US Patent No. 8,257,325, “Venous Access Port with Molded and/or Radiopaque Indicia.”  The challenged claims were directed to a venous access port assembly with a marking to indicate the port is rated for power … Continue Reading

PTAB Provides Roadmap for Petitioning for IPR of Design Patents

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Inter Partes Review
Less than one percent of petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) involve design patents.  This is not surprising, as over 9,000,000 United States utility patents have issued compared to only about 735,000 design patents.  Several recent developments in design patent law, however, may narrow the gap as applicants look for less expensive ways to enhance … Continue Reading
LexBlog