In Sierra Wireless v. Sisvel S.P.A., Appeals 2023-1059, -1085, -1089, -1125 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB decision that had found claims 1, 2, and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396 (“the ’396 patent”) obvious. In particular, the Federal Circuit found that the features in claim 1
On February 9, 2023 the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Early Warning Services, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. WePay Global Payments LLC, determining the design claim of US D930,702 (“D’702”) unpatentable, as both anticipated and obvious based on a single reference, Reddy, US 2018/0260806 A1 (“Reddy”). See Consolidated PGR2022-00031 and PGR2022-00045, Paper No. 34. D’702 claimed a display screen having an animated graphical user interface (GUI).Continue Reading PTAB Invalidates GUI, but Leaves Obviousness Test Gooey
In Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeals 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision canceling claims in Indivior’s patent claiming a polymer matrix-containing film. Certain claims in the patent recited an amount of polymer matrix inadequately disclosed, according to the Board, in a predecessor application to which the patent claimed priority. As a result, the claims’ effective filing date was so late that prior art published between the patent’s actual filing date and its earliest claimed priority date rendered the claims unpatentable. Here the prior art was none other than the Patent Office’s publication of one of the claimed priority applications.
Continue Reading So, You Invented a Numerical Range
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
In Hunting Titan Inc. v. DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG, Case IPR 2018-00600 (PTAB Jul. 6, 2020), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) vacated the decision of another Board panel to deny patent owner’s (DynaEnergetics) motion to amend. In that vacated decision, the Board had sua sponte determined the proposed substitute claims were anticipated, despite the petitioner’s (Hunting Titan) failure to advance such a position. After vacating the decision of the panel, the POP granted DynaEnergetics’ motion to amend and its request for rehearing of that panel’s final written decision finding DynaEnergetics’ claims unpatentable.
Continue Reading Rare Circumstances in IPRs are Even Rarer With Poor Strategy
In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., Case 18-2112 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2019), the Federal Circuit held the USPTO erred in determining that Chamberlain raised a new argument during the Board’s final hearing. There, Chamberlain argued that the prior art did not anticipate certain claims of the patent. The Federal Circuit explained that “Chamberlain was merely clarifying its earlier position” in response to One World’s reply brief and “not raising a new issue.” The Court, nevertheless, affirmed the Board’s decision canceling the challenged claims as anticipated by the prior art, noting that substantial evidence supported the finding.
Continue Reading Patent Invalidated Despite Owner’s Argument Reinstated On Appeal
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeals 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020), is remarkable, but not for its holding: “the Board may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in an IPR proceeding.” After 10,000 IPRs, hardly anyone thought otherwise. But it’s interesting nonetheless that someone so boldly tried to persuade the Board and the court otherwise. A $4.3 million willful infringement judgment will lead even the biggest of corporations to give it a try.
Continue Reading Come on, Board, Finish What You Started
Inter partes review not only provides a faster and cheaper way to challenge patent validity, but also expands the Patent Office’s ability to develop law on esoteric issues relating to prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc. is another in a line of cases arising out of IPR proceedings dealing with the availability of conference and trade show materials as prior art. See, for example, PTABWatch posts here and here. Interestingly, the court affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding certain claims of the challenged patent anticipated by a trade show publication, whereas the court came to the opposite conclusion in a related ITC appeal based on the same publication.
Continue Reading Trade Show Publication Dooms Patent in IPR Appeal Despite Contrary Decision in ITC Appeal
In Matthews International Corporation v. Vandor Corporation, No. 2017-1889 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2018) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision to uphold the claims of Vandor’s patent that Matthews challenged in inter partes review. The claims at issue “are directed to ‘a casket arrangement’ made of pliable material, such as cardboard,” in which side and end panels of the casket can be folded to allow the casket to be reconfigured and condensed for ease in shipping and storage. According to the PTAB and the Court, Matthews failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims were anticipated by the prior art, even though the claims may be obvious.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Puts Nail in Coffin For Petitioner’s Case Challenging Casket Patent
In TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC, Appeal 2016-2285 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision canceling claims directed to a hair styling device as anticipated by prior art. The court concluded that the Board improperly broadened two claim terms beyond the description in the patent specification. Using the correct claim construction, the court concluded that prior art does not anticipate the claims. In part, the court relied upon the abbreviation “i.e.” in determining the proper scope of the claim terms.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reverses, i.e. Overturns, Board’s Anticipation Decision Due to Overbroad Claim Construction