Patently-O

APRIL 20, 2024

by Dennis Crouch Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running design patent dispute with Columbia Sportswear. Questions presented: When looking for comparison prior art, is the article’s function relevant in any way? Must the comparison prior art be the “same article” as claimed? 511 (1871).

Design Patent 67

Design Patent Art Designs Design 67

Intellectual Property Law Blog

FEBRUARY 13, 2024

February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection.

Art 130

Art Invention Copying Designs 130

JD Supra Law

JANUARY 12, 2024

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently narrowed the scope of “comparison prior art” that may be used in a design patent infringement analysis. Comparison prior art” includes references used to help highlight distinctions between a plaintiff’s claimed design and a defendant’s design that is accused of infringing.

Design Patent 70

Design Patent Patent Infringement Art Designs 70

JD Supra Law

FEBRUARY 2, 2024

3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR petition. 8,510,407 B1 (“the ’407 Patent”), holding that certain appendices (primarily disclosing computer code), which were filed with the prior art patent. By: Jones Day

Art 68

Art Patent Licensing 68

IP.com

MAY 23, 2022

Valuing a patent is a multidisciplinary endeavor that incorporates legal, economic, and technical perspectives. Receiving full value on a patent is an important step for many companies and inventors who. The post Prior Art Valuations and Patent Scoping appeared first on IP.com - IP Innovation and Analytics.

Art 98

Art Patent Inventor IP 98

JD Supra Law

OCTOBER 4, 2023

The Federal Circuit has ruled that “comparison prior art” used in infringement analysis in a design patent infringement must be applied to the same “article of manufacture” that is identified in the claim of the design patent. By: AEON Law

Design Patent 68

Design Patent Patent Infringement Art Designs 68

JD Supra Law

MAY 18, 2023

In a recent appeal from the PTAB, the Federal Circuit held that claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the patent and prior art incorporated the same reference to describe a process for making the claimed composition of particles, and that process was responsible for determining the morphology of the claimed particles.

Art 102

Art Patent 102

JD Supra Law

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

Addressing a matter of first impression concerning the scope of prior art relevant to a design patent infringement analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that “to qualify as comparison prior art, the prior-art design must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.”

Design Patent 65

Design Patent Art Designs Design 65

IP Watchdog

NOVEMBER 15, 2023

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today designated as precedential a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from March of this year that held a precedential U.S.

Art 98

Art Designs Design Invention 98

JD Supra Law

APRIL 18, 2024

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog reported, the U.S. 8,671,132 on a data management system unpatentable. By: Erise IP

Art 59

Art Patent IP Reporting 59

JD Supra Law

JUNE 13, 2023

RE47,614 (the ’614 patent), directed to a drug delivery device. The PTAB had found Sanofi’s drug delivery patent to be obvious in view of three prior art references: Burren, Venezia, and de Gennes. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S.

Art 65

Art Patent 65

JD Supra Law

MAY 26, 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference relating to automotive engine parts was not analogous art to the challenged patent, which related to injection devices used for drug delivery. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,

Art 55

Art Patent 55

JD Supra Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

When Dynamic Drinkware was decided in 2015, commentators debated whether differences in the language of the American Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 USC § 102 would shield AIA patents from its restrictions. By: Foley & Lardner LLP

Art 65

Art Patent Invention Government 65

JD Supra Law

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

In the practice of patent examination in China, to determine whether an invention has prominent substantive features is to determine, to the person skilled in the art, whether the claimed invention is non-obvious as compared with the prior art. By: Linda Liu & Partners

Invention 98

Invention Art Patent 98

Patently-O

AUGUST 17, 2021

Ironburg won a $4 million judgment regarding two patents (now on appeal) and the district court stayed the litigation regarding U.S. Patent Nos. Those two patents are the subject of this appeal. The focus of the appeal is whether the purported “Burns” reference should count as prior art. ” Fed.

Art 123

Art Litigation Publishing Inventor 123

IP Watchdog

DECEMBER 6, 2023

In March 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) addressed in Penumbra, Inc. 10, 2023), a key issue in inter partes reviews: how to establish a reference patent as prior art based on the filing date of an earlier-filed application, such as a provisional. 2015), do not apply for post-America Invents Act (AIA) patents.

Art 52

Art Patent Invention Designs 52

JD Supra Law

MAY 10, 2024

See IPR2023-00861, Paper 15, (PTAB Apr. 5, 2024) (“Decision”).

Art 59

Art Patent 59

JD Supra Law

MARCH 14, 2024

In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the result-effective variable doctrine can apply even when there is no overlap between a claimed range and a prior art range. By: McDermott Will & Emery

Art 65

Art Trademark Patent 65

Patently-O

DECEMBER 20, 2022

In 2020, Storus (AKA “Mosaic Brands”) sued Ridge Wallet for both patent infringement (US7334616) and product-design trade dress misappropriation. Ridge counterclaimed with its own patent infringement contentions (US10791808, Fig 11 shown above). Summary Judgment : Ridge ‘808 patent was invalid as anticipated.

Art 123

Art Branding Brands Branding 123

The IP Law Blog

MARCH 10, 2022

The United States Copyright Office has refused to register a copyright for a work of art created by a machine. The work of art is a two-dimensional picture that is mostly dark and sort of looks like a painting. First, Mr. Thaler had no input into the work of art. Thaler filed a second request for reconsideration.

Art 97

Art Copyright Copyright Law Registration 97

JD Supra Law

SEPTEMBER 26, 2023

IPR2023-00478), a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied IPR institution where the asserted prior art was cumulative of that considered during prosecution. In Sandoz Inc. Acerta Pharma B.V.

Art 68

Art Patent 68

JD Supra Law

OCTOBER 12, 2021

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision on an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to limit prior art for design patent applications to only analogous fields may make it easier for applicants to obtain design patents and more difficult for challengers to invalidate them.

Design Patent 105

Design Patent Art Designs Design 105

JD Supra Law

FEBRUARY 13, 2024

the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and held that Weber’s operating manuals are prior art printed publications despite their limited distribution and distribution subject to confidentiality restrictions based on the operating manuals being sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.

Confidentiality 70

Confidentiality Art Technology Patent 70

JD Supra Law

NOVEMBER 6, 2023

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of “analogous prior art,” a patent law doctrine fundamental to the legal determination of whether a patent is invalid as obvious over the prior art. By: Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Art 65

Art Patent Law Business Patent 65

IP Watchdog

FEBRUARY 11, 2024

that vacated rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nixing validity challenges by American grill maker Weber against Provisur’s commercial food slicer patent claims. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Weber, Inc. Provisur Technologies, Inc.

Art 70

Art Technology Patent Litigation 70

JD Supra Law

MARCH 7, 2022

According to China’s local practice, there are three steps to follow when determining whether a claimed invention is obvious when compared to the prior art: determining the closest prior art; distinguishing the features of the invention and the technical problem that it actually solves; By: Linda Liu & Partners

Art 98

Art Invention Patent 98

JD Supra Law

SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

However, the Court agreed with the Board that the prior art was not reasonably pertinent because it concerned a different. By: McDermott Will & Emery

Art 65

Art Patent 65

Patently-O

APRIL 16, 2024

Pharmaceutical innovators are voicing concern that these disclosures are increasingly being used as prior art to invalidate patents arising out of, or otherwise relating to, these trials, in a manner that threatens to disincentivize investment in pharmaceutical innovation. A recent Federal Circuit decision, Salix Pharms., Teva Pharms.

Art 75

Art Patent Journalism Publishing 75

Larson & Larson

FEBRUARY 13, 2021

A high number of patent applications are given a non-final rejection from the USPTO according to Yale. Often, the reason that the patent office will cite for rejecting an application is the presence of prior art. This makes the term ‘prior art’ an important concept for inventors to understand. Exceptions.

Art 52

Art Patent Invention Patent Application 52

IIPRD

APRIL 8, 2024

Introduction: The creative AI and the art generated by such algorithms and technology are raising questions in field of copyright law which have emerged recently. AI is becoming more and more advanced by the day resulting in creation of such art without any sort of skills or human intervention required. [3]

Art 52

Art Artwork Intellectual Property Copyright Law 52

JD Supra Law

MAY 3, 2023

Summary: District court legally erred by applying incorrect anticipation framework but correctly found that patent claiming a ratio range was obvious over prior art disclosing overlapping range. District Court for the District of Delaware. By: Knobbe Martens

Art 98

Art Patent 98

Patently-O

APRIL 15, 2023

The patent at issue in this case, U.S. In particular the ‘589 patent claims a method for stabilizing rotigotine by combining a non-crystalline form of rotigotine with PVP to form a solid dispersion, wherein the weight ratio of rotigotine to PVP is in a range from about 9:4 to 9:6. market with its reformulated Neupro in 2012.

Art 80

Art Patent Marketing Marketing 80

JD Supra Law

DECEMBER 6, 2022

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a request for rehearing of a final written decision in which it had originally determined that the challenged were not unpatentable.

Art 98

Art Patent 98

JD Supra Law

APRIL 5, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently found claims directed to a web-based point of sale system and method unpatentable as obvious after conducting a thorough examination of whether a reference with one common inventor constituted prior art. By: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Art 62

Art Ownership Inventor Patent 62

Patently-O

NOVEMBER 28, 2023

by Dennis Crouch The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated as precedential a portion of its Penumbra v. RapidPulse decision in that provides important guidance on the use of a provisional patent application’s filing date for 102(a)(2) prior art under the America Invents Act. Penumbra, Inc. RapidPulse, Inc.

Art 48

Art Inventor Publishing Invention 48

The IPKat

JANUARY 5, 2022

The EPO Guidelines for Examination require the description of a patent application to summarise the background art ( F-II-4.3 ). This requirement usually manifests with a request from the Examiner for the description to be amended to identify the closest prior art. D8 is a patent relating to a filing unit. Not a robot?

Art 113

Art Patent Application Patent Invention 113

JD Supra Law

MAY 15, 2024

Takeaways: - Patent owner requested reexaminations are not an admission of claim unpatentability. Patent owners can and should control the reexamination request narrative. Patent owners must consider the pros and cons of filing a request for ex parte reexamination of their patent.

Patent 65

Patent Art 65