In Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner[1], the Federal Circuit notably held that it is “an elementary principle of patent law” that when a claim recites a numerical range, the claimed range is anticipated by a prior art reference that discloses a point or an example within that range.  Accordingly, when seeking to anticipate

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) ruled last Friday, February 23, 2018, that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. The issue has been percolating for months. For more background on the issue, see these previous blog articles – Tribal Sovereign Immunity: The New Defense Against IPRs? and

On Monday, February 12, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) anticipation rejections and vacated and remanded the obviousness rejections against U.S. Patent Application No. 12/906,222 (“the ’222 application”), an application directed to a valve assembly for draining contaminants, condensation, and other fluids that adversely affect the efficiency and

On February 9, 2018, in vacating and remanding parts of an obviousness decision, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) erred in parts of its analysis of motivation, teaching away, and commercial success in cancelling all claims of Polaris’ U.S. Pat. No. 8,596,405 (“the ’405 patent”) in

Patent litigation often involves the intersection of practice before the PTAB and district courts.  Not surprisingly then, the subject of this post—the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion concerning the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 (“the ʼ471 patent”)—directly relates to a litigation analyzed on our firm’s companion blog,  See here and here.

In re

In Wi-Fi One, the Federal Circuit held en banc that time-bar determinations by the PTAB under      § 315(b) are appealable and remanded the associated IPRs for further proceedings pertaining to the time-bar issue.

Appeals from IPR decisions of the PTAB are limited in scope by § 314(d), which states that “the determination by the