#ttab-decision

#ttab-decision

District Judge Troy Nunley stated that the merger would force national pay-TV providers like DirecTV to lift their prices on consumers, causing 'irreparable harm.'

The case centers on the "Martin" reference, a patent application covering LED technology that was filed on April 16, 2003 and published on October 21, 2004. Martin was later abandoned and never became a patent. Lynk Labs' '400 patent claims a priority date of February 25, 2004, placing it squarely in the gap between Martin's filing and publication dates. Samsung successfully used Martin to challenge claims of the '400 patent as obvious in IPR.

Regents of the University of California ("Regents") and Broad Institute were engaged in a patent interference proceeding involving the adaptation of CRISPR systems to edit eukaryotic DNA. Both parties were engaged in extensive testing related to editing eukaryotic DNA during the time of the invention, and both filed multiple patent applications that became the subjects of the patent interference proceedings.

The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings.

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.

The CAFC affirmed as to anticipation but reversed as to obviousness, holding that the Board relied on the wrong legal standard in finding no motivation to combine. The court emphasized that KSR v. Teleflex explicitly eschews such a rigid approach to obviousness, indicating the PTAB failed to properly apply flexible, common-sense reasoning when evaluating whether combining prior art references would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.

The enormity of the problem cannot be understated. A Federal Circuit panel recently reached a final decision that, if not overturned, will destroy the U.S. patent system, and will ironically impact the most valuable patents disproportionately. The ruling was simple and continues a disturbing and inexplicable trend-a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches.