#obviousness
#obviousness
[ follow ]
#patent-law #federal-circuit #inter-partes-review #claim-construction #cafc #prior-art #patent-litigation #ptab
#patent-law
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
1 month agoFederal Circuit In Part Reverses PTAB Ruling that Some Centripetal Network Threat Detection Patent Claims are Non-Obvious
The CAFC affirmed some claims unpatentable for obviousness while reversing others, emphasizing substantial evidence for its decision.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
1 day agoFederal Circuit Vacates PTAB Finding That Expert Testimony on Step Sequencing Was Conclusory
PTAB improperly rejected expert testimony as conclusory; Federal Circuit vacated the obviousness finding for lack of substantial evidence.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
4 days agoCAFC Affirms Dual PTAB Rulings Invalidating Pictometry's Aerial Roof-Measuring Patents
Excluding fundamental claim embodiments from coverage is highly disfavored, and PTAB obviousness findings were affirmed for both patents.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
1 week agoFederal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling That Samesurf's Shared Browsing Patent Claims Are Unpatentable
Claims are not limited to a single described embodiment absent a clear intent to limit, and the Board’s claim construction supported obviousness findings.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
7 years agoCAFC Vacates Board for Moving Target Rejections, Failure to Consider Reply Brief
The Federal Circuit vacated the Board's obviousness determination due to failure to consider applicants' arguments in their reply brief.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
1 month agoFederal Circuit In Part Reverses PTAB Ruling that Some Centripetal Network Threat Detection Patent Claims are Non-Obvious
The CAFC affirmed some claims unpatentable for obviousness while reversing others, emphasizing substantial evidence for its decision.
fromPatently-O
2 weeks agoPrior Art Rejection Rates in Design Patent Prosecution
We saw a huge change in our U.S. Design Patent system two years ago. In May 2024, the Federal Circuit decided LKQ v. GM, and ushering in a flexible obviousness test. The prior test was both rigid and restrictive and very few design patent applications were ever rejected as obvious. The new test opens the door to more rigorous obviousness examination.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
3 months agoCAFC Partially Affirms PTAB Unpatentability Decision for Samsung but Vacates on Unchallenged Claims
U.S. Patent No. 9,491,542 is titled "Automatic Sound Pass-Through Method and System for Earphones" and was challenged by Samsung via inter partes review (IPR) after ST1 sued Samsung for infringement. Samsung argued that claims 1-10 and 13- 20 of the patent were invalid due to obviousness based on three prior art references: Rosenberg, Ichimura and Visser. The PTAB ultimately found all of the challenged claims obvious over combinations of the prior art, but also found unchallenged claims 11 and 12 unpatentable without explanation.
Intellectual property law
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
4 months agoUndisputed Testimony on Portability of Setting Apparatus Dooms Orange's CAFC Appeal
Federal Circuit reversed district court on obviousness, finding Autel's prior art met every limitation and apparatus need only be portable relative to the vehicle.
Intellectual property law
fromPatently-O
7 months agoExecutive Branch Ethics: Why PTAB Judges Can Own Stock That Would Disqualify Article III Judges
PTAB judge stock ownership in petitioner did not require vacatur of institution and final written decisions; failure to consider copying evidence warranted relief.
frompatentlyo.com
8 months agoThanks for Your Input: Federal Circuit Ignores USPTO's 101 Framework (Again)
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims directed to vehicle identification systems for ridesharing services were unpatentable for obviousness, but reversed the Board's grant of Rideshare's motion to amend substitute claims. Judge Hughes, writing for the panel, held that the substitute claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they merely used technology as a tool to improve user experience rather than improving computer functionality itself.
Intellectual property law
fromIntellectual Property Law Blog
9 months agoClaiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness
Disclosure of a broad prior-art dose range does not automatically render narrower claimed dosing regimens obvious without a demonstrated reason to select the claimed doses.
Intellectual property law
fromIntellectual Property Law Blog
9 months agoNavigating Shockwave Medical: Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Standing, and Obviousness
Shockwave Medical's patent for IVL technology was challenged for obviousness based on prior art, resulting in multiple claims deemed unpatentable.
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
10 months agoCAFC Upholds Win for Janssen on Patent for Antipsychotic Med Dosing Regimen
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that Teva Pharmaceuticals did not prove the claims of Janssen Pharmaceuticals' patent for antipsychotic dosing regimens invalid for obviousness.
Law
[ Load more ]