To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Our precedent is clear—nothing more is required.
In Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the qualifications necessary to
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
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
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharms, Inc., No. 21-1981 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Sanofi’s patent claims were obvious, determining the PTAB used the wrong test for deciding whether an existing patent was “analogous” to the one being challenged.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals had asserted all claims
Collateral estoppel is a resource-saving shortcut. Judges consider it when an issue previously received sufficient judicial attention. And they apply it when the issue was resolved against the party now seeking, in some way, to circumvent that resolution. In the absence of some intervening change in the law or new evidence, resolution likely would be the same as before. Addressing the issue anew would therefore be a waste of everyone’s resources. So, the judge bars that party from re-litigating the issue and applies the consequences of the prior resolution. Collateral estoppel’s logical simplicity is manifest, but its application is sometimes complicated.Continue Reading Obvious Variants and the Hand of Fate
Over a thorough dissent by Judge O’Malley, the Federal Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to institute IPR despite an arbitration agreement between the parties. In re Maxpower Semiconductor, Inc., 2021-146, 2021-1950, 2021-1951, 2021-1952, 2021-1953, 2021 WL 4130639 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2021).
Continue Reading IPR Institution Despite Arbitration Agreement Is Not Appealable
On May 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit found obvious the claims of a patent directed to telepharmacy, describing a process allowing a pharmacist to remotely supervise and approve the work of non-pharmacists in filling drug orders. The court reversed the PTAB’s decision to the contrary. Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, 998 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In reaching its conclusion, the court clarified that a prior art patent that has previously been invalidated still qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 102(e). Id. at 1345.
Continue Reading An Invalidated Patent Still Qualifies As 102(e) Art