Prior Art

Subscribe to Prior Art

Musician playing guitar

In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal. No. 20-1104 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision that the Petitioner, Donner Technology, did not sufficiently prove unpatentability because a printed publication on which it relied was not sufficiently analogous to the claimed subject matter.  In doing so, the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB, and practitioners alike, of the proper standard for determining whether a reference is “analogous,” as well as how to appropriately apply that standard.
Continue Reading PTAB Plays Wrong Tune On Whether Reference is Analogous Art

In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, (“Ericsson”), v TCL Corporation, (“TCL”), 2017-2381, -2385 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that canceled claims in an Ericsson patent that TCL challenged based on its subsidiary finding that a German journal article TCL presented was indeed prior art.  The decision is important because it offers guidance in assessing what type of evidence may be persuasive in a PTAB’s assessment of the public accessibility of a journal article whose publication date is close to the challenged patent’s critical date.
Continue Reading Raiders of the Lost Art

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

Update: On November 1, 2018, the CAFC issued a modified opinion and an order denying Contour’s petition for rehearing en banc.  The modified opinion is consistent with the original petition, discussed below, insofar as the PTAB decision was vacated and remanded, but adds the following statement at page 8: “When direct availability to an ordinarily skilled artisan is no longer viewed as dispositive, the undisputed record evidence compels a conclusion that the GoPro Catalog is a printed publication as a matter of law.”  The modified opinion also deleted the following statements, parts of which were quoted in the blog, below: “Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, the attendees attracted to the show were likely more sophisticated and involved in the extreme action vehicle space than an average consumer. Thus, it is more likely than not that persons ordinarily skilled and interested in POV action cameras were in attendance or at least knew about the trade show and expected to find action sports cameras at the show. While the Board found that GoPro did not provide any evidence as to what products the companies at the trade show make, GoPro was not the only manufacturer of POV action cameras. The vendor list provided with Mr. Jones’s declaration listed a number of vendors who likely sell, produce and/or have a professional interest in digital video cameras.”

In a previous blog post, we reported that in a final written decision on October 26, 2016, the PTAB concluded that GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims in a patent owned by Contour IP Holding LLC (Contour) were unpatentable. IPR (IPR2015-01080; “the GoPro IPR”)  GoPro asserted that the challenged claims were unpatentable in view of, among other references, a GoPro product catalog that included information for a digital video camera.Continue Reading Tradeshow Catalog Qualifies as Prior Art

In IPR2015-01191, American MegaTrends and four other petitioners challenged claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15 of USPN 6,892,304 owned by Kinglite Holdings, Inc. on grounds of obviousness over three technical documents, supplemented by a fourth document for the challenge to claim 6.  The parties also indicated that they were involved in 11 other IPR petitions and two district court proceedings.

The technology disclosed and claimed in the ‘304 patent involved methods of encrypting instructions to the Basic Input-Output System (BIOS) of a computer operating system using a private-public key pair.
Continue Reading It Isn’t Printed Publication Art Unless It’s Publicly Accessible

While the Federal Circuit has accepted, en banc, the question of what a patent owner must demonstrate to the Board to obtain leave to amend its claims in an IPR as discussed in our earlier blog post (In re Aqua Products, No. 2015-1177 petition for rehearing en banc granted, 2016 WL 4375651 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2016)), the court provided some guidance this week on what is not a sufficient basis for denying a motion to amend.
Continue Reading A Limit on the Board’s Power – Denial of Motion to Amend Claims was Unreasonable

Child thinking with Pros and Cons on a blackboard concept for choice, for and against, confusion, inspiration and solution

The Federal Circuit recently confirmed the Board’s interpretation that § 315(e) estoppel does not take effect with respect to prior art that the Board declines to address as redundant. In two recent cases, Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Sys., Nos. 15-1116, 15-1119, __ F.3d __, at*6-9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) and HP, Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Invs., No. 2015-1427, __ F.3d __, at *13 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) the court held that “the noninstituted grounds do not become a part of the IPR” and, thus, estoppel does not apply to those grounds in a subsequent court or Board proceeding.Continue Reading Without Estoppel, Are Redundant Grounds Now a Petitioner’s Friend?

brown gavel and open book on a wooden table of the law in the courtroom

In what appears to be the first district court case to address the issue directly, Judge Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not preclude parties from raising grounds in a civil litigation that were cumulative of grounds that could have been asserted during that party’s prior IPR proceeding, so long as the grounds are based on prior art that was not reasonably available during the IPR. 
Continue Reading District Court Interprets IPR Estoppel Provision to Permit Reliance

In an earlier blog post from last June, we were unable to find any successful Requests for Rehearing or Reconsideration of a Final Written Decision and concluded that, in most instances, such requests are generally a waste of resources. However, while the PTAB has continued to deny the vast majority of motions for rehearing of a final written decision, it has now granted a few. Those limited number of successful rehearing requests demonstrate that, where you can point to something specific that the Board has overlooked, a request for rehearing may be worthwhile. However, where the Board merely disagrees with your argument, don’t bother.
Continue Reading When Might a Request for Rehearing of Final Decision Be Worthwhile?

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.