Sections 102/103

Subscribe to Sections 102/103 via RSS

The PTAB recently canceled the University of Pennsylvania’s U.S. Patent No. 7,625,558, a potentially fatal blow to the University’s suit against Eli Lilly and Company alleging its cancer therapeutic Erbitux® (centuximab) infringes the patent.  Eli Lilly and Co. v. Trustees of the Univ. of Penn., Case IPR2016-00458 (July 13, 2017). The PTAB’s decision resolved testimony from the parties’ competing expert witnesses in favor of the Petitioner (Eli Lilly and Company), thus highlighting how the PTAB’s scientific acumen can be leveraged to effectively short-circuit an otherwise expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
Continue Reading Eli Lilly Successfully Challenges U Penn Erbitux® Claims at PTAB, Derailing Infringement Suit

In Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Appeal 2016-1543, 2016-1545 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision canceling some claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,121,960, but vacated the portion of the decision that refused to cancel other claims.  With respect to the upheld claims, the court remanded the matter because the PTAB failed to adequately explain its findings, noting that the PTAB’s “disagreement with [the petitioner] … does not amount to a satisfactory explanation for its finding” that those claims are not unpatentable.  Google at 12.
Continue Reading Attorney Argument Doesn’t Provide Substantial Evidence To Support PTAB

In a final written decision issued on April 24, 2017, the PTAB canceled all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057, directed to detecting invalid and fraudulent clicks in pay-per-click web advertising (Google Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008 (Paper 56)). The PTAB found all four claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 101, and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination two prior art documents related to a study on online advertising reporting and auditing.
Continue Reading Pay-Per-Click Patent Found Ineligible Under Section 101

Cancelled in RedOn June 7, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR 2016-00254 canceling claims in a Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) patent covering Diprivan®. The PTAB instituted the IPR in response to a petition filed by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass and his colleague Erich Spangenberg. Diprivan® is the commercial name for propofol, an intravenous anesthetic agent used during surgery and other medical procedures.Continue Reading Kyle Bass Gets Fresenius’ Diprivan Claims Canceled in IPR

combustion fumes coming out of car exhaust pipe as concept of damage in the climate change and global warming

In EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of American, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Owner’s uncorroborated declaration was insufficient to show that asserted prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) represented the work of the same inventive entity as the challenged claims, and with respect to certain claims the PTAB failed to provide sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the PTAB’s decision that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness.Continue Reading Uncorroborated Declaration Not Sufficient to Avoid § 102(e) Prior Art

Man under stress because of too much problems. Abstract image with a wooden puppet

In Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc., Appeal 2017-1002 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that no inter partes reexamination proceeding can be brought or maintained on issues that a party raised or could have raised in a since-concluded civil action. Specifically, once the court issues a final judgment in the civil action that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of the patent claim, the party may neither initiate nor maintain a challenge to the patent claim in an inter partes reexamination. The decision is an interesting contrast to the decision in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. where the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s inter partes review decisions finding obvious certain patents that were previously found nonobvious in district court. The contrast is grounded in differences in the statutory estoppel provisions that apply to the different proceedings.Continue Reading Different Invalidity Conclusions by PTAB and Federal Courts Prohibited

http://www.zmina.com/Sign.jpgIn a recent appeal from a PTAB final written decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s determination that all claims of a Duke patent were unpatentable (Duke Univ. v. BioMarin Pharm. Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1106 (Fed. Cir., April 25, 2017). The court concluded that certain of the Board’s claim constructions were incorrect, and that others, while appropriate, were mis-applied and reversed the Board’s decision on anticipation, as well as obviousness of some claims.
Continue Reading Claim Construction Sends Duke’s Patent Back to PTAB for Reconsideration, In Part

Worker pouring liquid metal into crucible.

In Rovalma, S. A. Böhler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., No. 2016-2233 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s final written decision and remanded the case for the PTAB to provide a further explanation for its determination that the challenged claims were obvious. According to the court, the PTAB’s decision lacked sufficient detail necessary for the court to determine if the PTAB’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, or if the PTAB provided the Patent Owner proper notice and opportunity to respond to the PTAB’s claim construction and theory of unpatentability.Continue Reading Owner of Hot-Work Steel Processing Patent Burned by Its Own IPR Evidence

Set of different black vector wireless and wifi icons for remote access and communication via radio waves

In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part two PTAB final written decisions cancelling some but not all challenged claims  of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 (“the ‘524 patent”). The PTAB and court decisions are interesting because together they highlight the consequence of not supporting seemingly strong arguments with expert witness testimony. Further, the decisions highlight the consequence of not explaining how facts implicate esoteric nuances in the patent laws.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Signals that PTAB Correctly Construed Most Signal Terms but Misconstrued one Other

Two knight on a chessboard. Light and dark. Confrontation. Against each other. Forehead to forehead. Vintage toning.

In the latest development in the ongoing patent battle between Google and SimpleAir Inc., a Federal Circuit panel agreed with SimpleAir that Google waived a claim construction it asserted on appeal because Google had failed to argue that construction before the PTAB.

SimpleAir originally asserted a series of patents against Google, including U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 (“the ’154 patent”) directed to a data communication system connecting on-line networks with on-line and off-line computers. Google challenged the validity of the ’154 patent in an IPR.  The PTAB determined the challenged claims of the ’154 patent were not invalid, concluding that Google failed to identify in the prior art “a central broadcast server,” recited in the challenged claims.  Google appealed the PTAB’s final written decision, and argued that the PTAB erred in its interpretation of this limitation.  
Continue Reading Failing to Articulate Desired Claim Construction Before PTAB May Lead to Waiver

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.