"The Board concluded that the '558 patent is prior art under 35 USC § 102(e), which was pivotal in invalidating the claims of the '758 patent."
"EmeraChem failed to explain the inventorship assertions in the Campbell Declaration, which was deemed uncorroborated testimony by an interested witness."
"The Board's decision relied on Volkswagen's argument that the relevant disclosures of the '558 patent were not the work of 'another' and thus constituted prior art."
"EmeraChem argued that it did not have sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the Stiles patent as grounds for rejecting dependent claims."
EmeraChem Holdings owns the '758 patent for methods to regenerate a catalyst after exposure to pollutants. Volkswagen challenged the patent's validity, claiming it was obvious based on the '558 patent and other references. The Board agreed, ruling the '558 patent as prior art. EmeraChem's argument that the '558 patent was not prior art was rejected, and the Board found insufficient evidence to support EmeraChem's claims regarding inventorship. EmeraChem appealed the decision, asserting lack of notice and opportunity to respond to certain grounds for rejection.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]