Sections 102/103

Subscribe to Sections 102/103 via RSS

3d render - Telephone directoryIn Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision canceling claims for obviousness, on the basis that the PTAB improperly relied on “common sense” to determine that the claims were obvious.

The challenged patent is directed to a computer-implemented method for providing beneficial coordination between a first computer program displaying a document and a second computer program for searching an external information source. The Board determined that the claims were obvious over a single reference (Pandit), although Pandit did not expressly disclose a step of “performing a search” of an information source, as recited in the claims. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Identifies Limits to the Application of “Common Sense” in an Obviousness Analysis

In what has been a rare outcome to date, the Federal Circuit in Apotex v. Wyeth, dkt. no. 2015-1871 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016) affirmed in a non-precedential decision the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2014-00115 that the challenged claims were not unpatentably obvious over three references.  At trial, the PTAB found that Apotex did not sustain its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a reason to substitute the claim-recited antibiotic for a prior art antibiotic and that there was a reason to combine the three references.  In its appeal, Apotex unsuccessfully argued that the structural similarity of the antibiotics provided a reason to substitute, and argued that the PTAB failed to consider reasons to combine other than solving the problem addressed by the Patent Owner.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Upholding Patent Claims

Equal Arm _ Balance ScaleThe Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in In re: Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., No. 2015-1050, 2015-1058 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016), highlights recurring themes in appeals of PTAB IPR decisions.  On one hand, the Federal Circuit is reluctant to overturn a PTAB decision canceling claims for obviousness based on Patent Owner’s assertions that the PTAB failed to properly weigh certain facts found in reaching its decision.  On the other hand, the Federal Circuit will not hesitate to vacate and remand PTAB decisions where the PTAB does not adequately describe its reasons for concluding a claimed invention is obvious. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Refuses to Reweigh Factual Findings, But PTAB’s Conclusory Statements Are Insufficient

Warning road sign "U turn". Digitally generated 3d image.

The PTAB is not often persuaded by objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations, when the scope and content of the prior art includes all of the features recited in the claims. However, a pair of recent PTAB decisions, Innopharma Licensing, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., LTD., IPR2015-00902, Paper 90, and IPR2015-00903, Paper 82 (PTAB July 28, 2016), provides a rare example where the PTAB completely changed its mind after instituting the IPRs. The decisions offer the same message, and this post focuses on the decision in IPR2015-00902, where the PTAB found all of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,669,290 not obvious over the applied prior art references based on the objective evidence of non-obviousness.
Continue Reading Secondary Considerations Change Panel’s Mind after Institution

Pills flowing out of a bottle of prescription medicine with information of their possible serious side effects.

The PTAB recently addressed the limits on strategies to patent drug labeling, canceling claims directed to a method of supplying a pharmaceutical product where the method includes a step of providing certain “information” to the medical provider. According to the PTAB, the claimed step of providing the information is entitled to no patentable weight under the “printed matter” doctrine where it is not functionally related to other elements of the claimed method.  Specifically, even if the claim says that the information is “sufficient to” cause some effect (e.g., for a medical provider to avoid treating a patient) there is no functional relationship with the claim if the claim doesn’t recite that effect.   Praxair Distribution Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd., IPR2015-00529.
Continue Reading “Providing . . . information” Step Given No Patentable Weight

Victory comes if you are lucky on dices

In what could become a common patent challenge strategy, PeroxyChem, a chemical company that sells products useful in water and soil remediation, has employed a three-front assault—combining the relatively young post-grant review procedure, with an IPR and litigation–to take on one of its competitors, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET).  Litigation together with an IPR has become a rather common means to challenge a competitor’s patent. However, post grant review is gaining in popularity among litigants, adding to the available strategies of overcoming potential barriers to market entry for companies.  For example, while 12 Petitions for PGR were filed in all of 2015, 15 have been filed so far in the first half of 2016. 
Continue Reading The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent

Funny vintage detective looking through a magnifier

This blog has previously explained on July 23, 2015, December 10, 2015, and December 16, 2015 why it is important for parties to AIA trials to carefully consider the patent prosecution history.  Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has discretion to deny an AIA trial if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”  The Board recently exercised that discretion in denying an inter partes review petition and, in doing so, provided yet another warning to petitioners: do not waste the Board’s time presenting in a petition prior art and arguments that were already considered during prosecution, and be sure to address deficiencies in prior art combinations the patentee overcame during prosecution.  Drug Prices for Consumers,  LLC v. Forest Labs. Holdings Ltd., Case IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (PTAB July 1, 2016).
Continue Reading Been There, Done That: Petitioners Should Find Art and Arguments Not Previously Considered During Prosecution

Vancouver, Canada - December 15, 2013: A Lego toy of Gandalf, the Wizard from The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Gandalf is a member of the order of the Istari and one of the Maiar of Valinor. He lends counsel and leadership to Bilbo Baggins, the Fellowship of the Ring and the people of Middle Earth.

On July 6, 2016, the PTAB cancelled claims in a patent which had bedeviled more than 250 named defendants in litigation dating back to 2008.  The list of defendants reads like a Who’s Who of financial and commercial businesses, including the nation’s most prominent banks, credit card companies, online stock traders, e-Commerce retailers, cable and telecommunications companies, airlines, and even all twelve of the nation’s Federal Reserve banks.  Any plans the patent owner had to continue its siege of these vast tracts of economic activity were brought to a halt by the PTAB’s final written decision in MasterCard International, Inc. v. Stambler, Case CBM2015-00044, Paper 32 (PTAB 2016), which found that the petitioner, MasterCard, had proven the challenged claims were anticipated by and/or obvious over prior art.
Continue Reading PTAB Finds Motivation to Combine References, but Cancellation Comes Too Late for More than 200 Defendants

Granted v2We previously reported the May 9, 2016, Patent Office’s study that the PTAB rarely grants motions to amend.  There, we explained that patent owners rarely file motions to amend and, even when such motions are filed, the PTAB rarely grants such motions. Last week, in Google Inc. and Apple Inc., v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case CBM2015-00040, Paper 8 (PTAB June 21, 2016), the PTAB granted a Patent Owner’s motion to amend. This case is thus a rare example of the PTAB’s willingness to grant a motion to amend when the Patent Owner provides detailed arguments evidencing why a proposed, substitute claim is patentable over the “prior art known to the patent owner.”
Continue Reading “It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, NO it’s a Granted Motion to Amend.”

The Board initially denied institution of Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,186, owned by AstraZeneca.  After a rare grant of Mylan’s request for rehearing, the Board reconsidered the record and decided to institute the IPR.  The decision to institute focused on the content of Mylan’s expert testimony; and although not mentioned in the decision, the replacement of one APJ in the PTAB panel for the decision on rehearing might have played a role in the grant of the request for rehearing and the decision to institute the IPR on rehearing even though both decisions were unanimous.
Continue Reading Rare Grant of Rehearing of Denial of Petition for Inter Partes Review

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.