The equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel protects a party from having to re-litigate an issue that has already been fully and fairly adjudicated. In Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc. the Federal Circuit said that application of collateral estoppel is not limited to construing only identical patent claims; but instead, it extends to terms … Continue Reading
A patent that is merely incidental to a financial activity is not sufficient to render that patent eligible for CBM review. Secure Access, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association et. al, Case No. 2016-1353 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2017). In Secure Access, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the PTAB’s decision that U.S. Patent No. … Continue Reading
Notice of grounds for unpatentability in one proceeding does not provide notice in a second, related proceeding, even where the proceedings relate to the same patent, are between the same two parties, and include the same prior art reference. The Federal Circuit, in In re: NuVasive, Inc., Case Nos. 2015-1672 and 2015-1673 (Fed. Cir. Nov. … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently vacated or reversed-in-part two PTAB final written decisions on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately describe its reasons for concluding the claimed invention is obvious. In both instances, the court criticized the Board’s “broad, conclusory statements” regarding one of ordinary skill’s motivation to adjust prior art teachings. These decisions … Continue Reading
An updated discussion of this issue is available here: Who Must Bear the Burden of Proof Regarding Patentability of Amended Claims? The Federal Circuit confirmed in a precedential opinion that the burden to prove patentability of an amended claim in an IPR proceeding rests squarely with the patentee, and in deciding a motion to amend … Continue Reading
In Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2014-1516, 2015-1530 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment that two of the challenged claims were not invalid as anticipated. The court also held that (1) the final order of the Board need not address every claim raised in the petition … Continue Reading
The material contained on this blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed are those of the author and are not to be attributed to Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or any of its clients. The publication and receipt of any information contained on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or with any of its attorneys. Readers should not act upon any information on this site without seeking professional legal counsel.