Sections 102/103

Subscribe to Sections 102/103 via RSS

Home theater speakers isolated on white background.

In Slot Speaker Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2015-2038, 2015-2039 (Fed. Cir. February 17, 2017) (non-prec.), the Federal Circuit affirmed a portion of the PTAB’s decision in an IPR that concluded claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,433,483 would have been obvious over a combination of two prior art references, but reversed the portion that concluded that the same combination does not render dependent claim 3 obvious. The decision is interesting because the Board and the Federal Circuit concluded that the reduced effectiveness of the combined references as compared to a single reference  alone would not deter a person of skill in the art from having a reasonable expectation of success in making the invention.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds Portion of Board’s Obviousness Decision Supported

Idea and leadership concept Vintage bulbs on wall background, copy space for text

In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that the challenged claims are invalid as obvious and dismissed the PTAB’s CBM review as moot.

Petitioner Google filed IPR and CBM petitions challenging claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205 (“the  ’205 patent”) owned by Unwired Planet, LLC.  The ’205 patent describes a system and method for providing wireless network subscribers with prioritized search results based on the location of the mobile device.  Claim 1 is the sole independent claim of the ’205 patent and recites “farther-over-nearer ordering” in the context of wireless location-based services.  We previously discussed a related CBM review between the same parties.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Claims Based on Analogous Art

Bold man riding on a brown horses.

In IPR2015-01157, 10X Genomics, Inc. challenged claims 1-31 of USPN 8,889,083 owned by the University of Chicago.  PTAB instituted trial on grounds of obviousness over two references.  Each party relied on the testimony of one or more experts, and the Patent Owner challenged expert testimony as exceeding the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply.

The technology at issue involved a device and method for pressurized transport of fluidic plugs, or droplets, in microfluidic systems used in chemical and biochemical reactions.  The plug form of transport arises by injecting fluid containing reagents and a fluorinated surfactant into an immiscible fluorinated carrier fluid flowing in non-fluorinated microchannels of a microfluidic system. 
Continue Reading Don’t Switch Horses Midstream

In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2016-1174 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s construction of disputed claim terms, but did not resolve a dispute over whether the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard (BRI) or Phillips standard should apply when the challenged patent expires shortly after the PTAB issues its final written decision. Despite the correct claim construction, the court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the PTAB for reconsideration of the merits of its decision on obviousness.

Apple filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Personal Web’s patent directed to methods of locating data and controlling access to the data by giving a data file a substantially unique name that depends on the file’s content. In determining that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness, the PTAB construed the claim term “content-based identifier” and related terms, applying the BRI standard.
Continue Reading What Claim Construction Standard Applies If a Patent Expires During IPR Appeal?

Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies.

Recently, the PTAB decided that only some claims of Immersion Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 were challengeable by Apple Inc. in an IPR because the ‘571 patent failed to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the “drive module limitation” recited in claim 12 to determine the scope and meaning of claim 12.  Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation, IPR2016-01372, Paper 7 (January 11, 2017).
Continue Reading PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

Phenylephrine Hydrochloride (resized)The first final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent arising from Art Unit 1600 issued November 14, 2016, in Altaire Pharm. Inc.. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., PGR2015-00011.  PGRs allow challenge based on enablement, written description, indefiniteness, and subject matter eligibility, in addition to the novelty and obviousness bases available in IPRs, permitting petitioners to rely on arguments commonly used to invalidate biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents in litigation.  Here, however, the PTAB instituted PGR based only on obviousness grounds, and ultimately determined that the petitioner did not meet its burden in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review Final Written Decision – All Claims Survive

Form Over FunctionIs there a difference between saying that it would be intuitive to use the features of one prior art reference in combination with another, versus saying that such a combination merely uses a prior art element for its established function? According to two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit apparently thinks so.

In In re: Van Os, Case No. 2015-1975 (January 3, 2017), the Court reversed and remanded the Board’s finding of obviousness, rejecting the Board’s conclusion that the combination of prior art references would have been “intuitive.” The case concerned an appeal of the Board’s decision to sustain the patent examiner’s rejection of Apple’s U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,470 directed to a touchscreen interface in a portable electronic device that allowed a user to rearrange icons on a display.
Continue Reading Intuitive to Use Versus Use of an Element for its Intended Purpose – Is There a Difference?

Green Traffic Lights against Blue Sky Backgrounds with clipping path

Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey allowed Purdue Pharma to assert invalidity arguments in the litigation that were previously submitted in an IPR petition, but upon which IPR review was not instituted. See Depomed Inc. v Purdue Pharma LP, Civil Action 13-571, Order (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016). The Court rejected the patent owner’s arguments that Section 315(e) of Title 35 estopped Purdue from raising these argument.
Continue Reading Purdue Not Estopped From Raising Invalidity Contentions at Trial That Were Submitted But Not Instituted During IPR

Closeup businessman working with generic design notebook. Online payments, hands keyboard. Blurred background, film effect

The Federal Circuit recently vacated PTAB final written decisions that rested on a claim construction contradicted by the patent’s prosecution history. Specifically, in D’Agostino v. Mastercard Int’l Inc., No. 2016-1592, 2016-1593 (Fed. Cir. December 22, 2016), the court vacated the Board’s IPR decisions of unpatentability of method claims in two patents directed to processes for generating limited-use transaction codes to be given to a merchant by a customer for the purchase of goods and services.  The court determined that the Board’s decisions rested on an unreasonable claim interpretation of a “single-merchant” claim limitation, noting that, contrary to the Board’s claim interpretation, “[t]he prosecution history reinforces the evident meaning of the single-merchant limitation as requiring limiting, to one, the number of merchants that may use the transaction code, without identifying the merchant.” The court’s decision serves as a good example of how the prosecution history may aid a patentee in defending against patentability challenges in AIA trials.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates Board’s Decision Cancelling Method Claims

The Federal Circuit has once again vacated and remanded a PTAB decision on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately explain its reasons for finding a claimed invention obvious, but this time in the context of an appeal decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of pending claims.

In In re: Marcel Van Os et al., Appeal No. 2015-1975 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s affirmance, on appeal, of the examiner’s rejection of claims 38-41 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,470 (“the 470 application”) as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,231,229 (“Hawkins”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0191059 (“Gillespie”).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit to PTAB (Once Again) – Explain Yourself!!!

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.