On November 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,[1] holding that the PTAB applied an incorrect standard to determine whether a reference in the case was analogous art. While
A motion recently filed by US Inventor, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeks a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Patent Office”) from instituting any new reviews of any patent until it solves the debate
Last week, four major technology companies – Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel – brought suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), challenging its authority to reject petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two precedential decisions by its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The decisions, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.
Thanks to a decision handed down by the Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) last month, patent owners may find some difficulty in having petitions to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) dismissed based on the PTAB’s discretion under Section 314(a) of the patent act. In Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group
The Halloween 2019 decision, Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew,[1] created a new right to rehearing in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and has sent ripples through the judiciary and legislative branches that will continue to be felt for the foreseeable future. In the case, the Federal Circuit opinion announced that the
On March 30, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied the federal government’s unopposed motion to stay a mandate of the court’s final judgment in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, meaning the United States Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must reopen and rehear up to 81 cases decided by the PTAB before the
In BioDelivery Sciences International v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a rehearing en banc after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) interpreted its remand order to “implement the [Supreme] Court’s decision in [SAS Institute v. Iancu]”[1] by modifying its institution decision, denying
The Federal Circuit recently addressed the requirement for establishing “nexus” for secondary indicia. On December 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) vacated and remanded a PTAB decision of non-obvious, and ultimately raised the bar a patentee needs to meet to invoke secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, No. 18-2024 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated an inter partes review (“IPR”) final decision holding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 as non-obvious due in large part to a finding of commercial success attributed to the claimed invention. On appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB improperly applied the presumption of nexus between the evidence of commercial success and the claims of the patent. The court held that the proper presumption of nexus can only be achieved by proving that the product sold by the patentee is “essentially the claimed invention.” Id. at 12.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Raises the Standard of Nexus Requirement for Secondary Indicia of Non-Obviousness
Recently, the Federal Circuit held that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) comprising the 3-member USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are unconstitutionally appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The court promptly remedied the violation and limited its effect on other PTAB decisions.
Continue Reading The Federal Circuit’s Determination That Administrative Patent Judges are Unconstitutionally Appointed
On October 4, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the rules of prosecution practice pertaining to patent term adjustment (“PTA”) in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu,