Posts Tagged: "prior art"

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., reversing the finding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain operating manuals with limited dissemination and confidentiality restrictions did not qualify as prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision concluded that the Board misapplied the analysis for meeting the public accessibility standard for a printed publication to qualify as prior art.

In a recent brief to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Pfizer and BioNTech (Pfizer) told PTAB judges that Moderna’s dismissal of prior art listed in Pfizer’s August 2023 petition for inter partes review (IPR) of Moderna’s patent on mRNA vaccine technology is inconsistent with its declarations to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the drug approval process. According to the brief, when Moderna was seeking approval for its COVID-19 vaccines, the company “candidly represented to the FDA that prior studies for related vaccines…supported an expectation of safety and efficacy. But now, faced with invalidating vaccine prior art…Moderna wrongly casts the same vaccine prior art as irrelevant.” The brief referred to this as a “litigation-driven one-eighty.”

Section 311(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that a patent can be challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” A published U.S. patent application that never issued as a patent can be used as the basis for an IPR challenge because it’s printed and it’s a publication, right? Not so fast.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today affirmed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated some claims and upheld others of a patent owned by Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. Based on the PTAB’s claim construction, which the CAFC agreed with, the decision held that Pacific Biosciences had failed to prove the prior art taught the limitation of the preamble phrase of claim 1 in one inter partes review, (IPR) but did prove a different prior art reference taught the limitation in the other proceeding.

In March 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) addressed in Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.,  IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (Mar. 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. The Board held that the requirements of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015), do not apply for post-America Invents Act (AIA) patents. Penumbra, IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 at 29-35. On November 15, 2023, U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal designated the Penumbra decision precedential. This article explores the evolution of the law on this issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that Medtronic, Inc. failed to show the challenged claims of five patents covering catheter technology unpatentable. The CAFC specifically upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented, arguing that the prior art reference had been shown to qualify as prior art, and thus could support a determination of anticipation or obviousness.

Standard-documentation from online sources maintained by standard setting organizations (SSOs) is usually an important source of relevant prior art. Such prior art can include technical specifications, technical reports, change requests, liasioning statements, work item descriptions, study documents, recommendations and RFCs. However, accessing this documentation available in SSO websites is often not easy.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (“Advanced Bionics”), the PTAB established a two-part framework for determining whether a PTAB panel should exercise discretion under Section 325(d). This article surveys recent PTAB decisions having the common fact that the IPR challenges rely upon prior art that is the same or substantially the same as prior art submitted in an IDS during prosecution to glean insights as to how parties and the Board are addressing Advanced Bionics in this scenario.

In Part I of this series, we discussed  the importance of identifying and avoiding patentability-blocking ambiguities in a patent application. It is equally important that the patent application drafter bring a sensibility to the drafting of the application that recognizes that conceptually the application must not  simply be seen as a document whose job is to describe an invention but must also be understood to be a document that must have a descriptive capability that enables it to distinguish patent worthy subject matter from prior art. Thus, when the patentability of patent worthy subject matter disclosed by the application is challenged, the application can speak—it is able to defend its patentability. This capability is essential in both pre and post grant forums.

In a precedential decision issued earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an appeal by LSI Corporation and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (LSI) regarding the PTAB’s finding that LSI’s cited reference in an inter partes review (IPR) did not qualify as prior art. The CAFC said in part that U.S. Patent No. 5,731,768 (“Tsang”) was not “by another” under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for U.S. Patent No. 5,859,601 (‘601 patent).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) earlier today held in a precedential decision that a typographical error in a prior art document would have been dismissed by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and thus could not be used to prove obviousness. The appeal was brought by LG Electronics, Inc, against ImmerVision, Inc. and related to claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 for “capturing and displaying digital panoramic images.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today vacated and remanded two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on related inter partes reviews (IPRs) brought by Apple against Qualcomm, explaining that the Board’s determination that “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” includes applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) was incorrect. The CAFC nonetheless remanded the case for the PTAB to decide “whether Apple’s petition nonetheless raises its § 103 challenge on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Apple petitioned the PTAB to review the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674. In two separate decisions, the PTAB found several claims unpatentable under Section 103, basing its finding on a ground raised by Apple that relied in part on AAPA and a prior art patent. Apple also challenged the claims as unpatentable under Section 103 based on two prior patents and one publication, but the Board said that Apple had not proven unpatentability on this ground.

On August 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) involving inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that affirmed the patentability of two of Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s patents.

On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Central District of California to vacate a judgment and injunction for Zinus, Inc., holding the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court concluded: “Here, Lawrie, Zinus’s president and expert witness, misrepresented his knowledge of highly material prior art. The district court properly declined to condone such conduct.”