Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Novelty
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this year, in U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, partially granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants-Appellees Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. that claims 1, 6,…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In April, in Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Report and Recommendation that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Certain Disputed References are Prior Art should be granted in…
-
Federal Circuit Reverses Board in Two IPR Decisions By Joseph Herndon — In International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit found that the Board's interpretation of key claim limitations was incorrect resulting in the Board's decisions having errors. IBM owns U.S. Patent No. 7,631,346, entitled "Method and System for a Runtime User…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Patent law is known for its several challenges in sufficiently capturing an invention, tangible in form and substance, in words with all their limitations. Patent law is known for being littered with traps for the unwary. And patent law is replete with instances where claims are found unpatentable because they…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Elevation to Chief Judge in a U.S. Court of Appeals, particularly in the Federal Circuit, is frequently accompanied by an apparent mandate to place an imprimatur on the Court's decisions. This pattern has been shown consistently in this appellate court, from Chief Judge Markey through Chief Judges Michel and Rader. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — "Pigs fly!" "Hell has frozen over!" Or less dramatically, "Supreme Court affirms Federal Circuit decision!" all would be apt subtitles for any article discussing the Supreme Court's decision today in Helsinn v. Teva. The question before the Court was whether Congress intended by passing the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act (AIA)…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court's recent forays into patent law cases have evinced a tendency towards statutory construction analysis, whether regarding substantive law (see, e.g., WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (2018); Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (2017); Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (2017); TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods…
-
What is a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes? By Joseph Herndon — Patent owner Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration") appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2k Sports, Inc.,…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Nobel Biocare Services AG appealed from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR) holding claims 1–5 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977 invalid based on an ABT Catalog. Many issues were presented, and here, we review the…
Patent Docs 