As we have discussed (here and here), owners of pre-AIA patents may be able to “swear behind” alleged prior art references by providing evidence of an earlier invention date, but the inventors’ testimony concerning conception of the invention must be corroborated by independent evidence. In Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., No. 2018-1259 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 2, 2019), the patent owner was unable to swear behind alleged prior art because it did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence. Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., ruling the claims at issue were directed to the abstract idea of rules for playing a dice game. Finding that the recited elements did not amount to significantly more than that abstract idea itself, the court found the claims ineligible for patent protection. Continue Reading
In re Global IP Holdings LLC, Appeal 2018-1426 (Fed. Cir. July 5,2019), concerns patent law’s written description requirement, under 35 USC § 112. The patentee is trying to reissue its patent on a carpeted load floor of a car. The patented floor includes thermoplastic components. The components, according to the patentee, ought not have been limited to thermoplastics, rather each should have been any plastic. So, the patentee sought to reissue the patent with a claim to the broader invention. The Patent Office examiner rejected the revised claim. Continue Reading
PTABWatch Takeaway: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as “informative” four decisions applying the Patent Office’s 2019 patent eligibility guidance (PEG) regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the decisions are not binding on future PTAB panels, the decisions provide useful insights into how the PTAB may approach issues of patent eligibility on ex parte appeal, and what type of claims are likely to be found patent-eligible.
An overview of the PEG, including a description of how to analyze abstract ideas under the Patent Office’s newly revised step 2A, may be found in our previous posting titled How the PTAB Reviews Software Inventions Under the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Continue Reading
In May 2019, the PTAB designated precedential two IPR decisions related to its discretion to institute inter partes review.
In Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., the Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), applying the precedential General Plastic factors to deny institution of a follow-on petition. See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 17-18 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)(precedential) and our post about this case. The Board determined that all the General Plastic factors weighed against institution. Continue Reading
Recently updated statistics from the USPTO provide little comfort for patent owners seeking to amend claims during an IPR proceeding. The Motion to Amend Study, Installment 5 through FY2018, updated March 2019, reports that patent owners have filed a motion to amend in 326 of the 3,599 completed trials (9%) and in 90 of the 670 pending trials (13%). Of the 326 motions filed in completed trials, the Board decided a motion to amend requesting to substitute claims in 205 trials (63%), and of those decided motions, Board granted or granted-in-part a motion to amend in only 21 of the 205 trials (10%). Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit on June 14 affirmed Patent Office decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings canceling patents the University of Minnesota owned, concluding that “state sovereign immunity does not apply to these proceedings.” The court’s conclusion is not limited to instances where, for example, a state university waives its sovereign immunity by asserting a patent in federal court proceedings. One broad import of the court’s holding therefore is that all state university patents are vulnerable to attack in PTO proceedings. Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp., Appeal 2018-1559 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019); Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Ericsson Inc., Appeals 2018-1560 et seq. (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019).
In AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May. 13, 2019), the Federal Circuit determined that a manufacturer did not have standing to appeal an adverse decision in an IPR challenging a competitor’s patent, because the petitioner did not have a present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct arguably covered by the patent. The decision leaves open the question of whether a petitioner that lacks standing to appeal would be bound by petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Continue Reading
A few months ago, in BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, the Federal Circuit invited the Patent Office’s views on the scope of the petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). We noted then that this is an estoppel a district court may apply, but the Patent Office may not. In response to the court’s invitation, the Patent Office said that a court may apply this statutory estoppel not only to petitioners who lose an IPR, but also to those who prevail. The Office conceded that estopping prevailing IPR petitioners “leads to the counterintuitive result that a district court would not be able to consider invalidity arguments that the Board found persuasive.” But the Office said that this will have no practical effect in most cases. Continue Reading
In an unusual fact situation, Judge Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that estoppel stemming from a Final Written Decision of the PTAB could arise even if issued after trial where the court has not yet entered final judgment on the relevant ground. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Case No. 14cv1289 (D. Del. April 11, 2019).