When is Patent Prior Art Distinct but Not Different?

Where distinct physical concepts recited in a patent claim and applied prior art are related and can achieve same results, do not count on being able to distinguish teachings of the prior art.  In Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd… Read More

Patent Drafting Tip: Take Care with Open-Ended Descriptions

Be careful with the conventional wisdom that tells a patent drafter to use permissive, open-ended language when describing features of an invention.  Like me, you may have been taught to avoid “patent obscenities” like “inv… Read More

Prior Art is What an Internet Search Engine Sees

A decision holding that an a YouTube video is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is a reminder that one should always assume that content on the Internet accessible via a public search engine qualifies as prior art. … Read More

Contemporary Evidence Beats Google Obviousness Challenge

The Federal Circuit recently upheld two patents against an obviousness challenge by Google. (Google v. At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust (Fed. Cir. 2018).) This case demonstrates the importance of contemporary evidence to supp… Read More

Distribution Agreement held to be “Offer for Sale”

The Federal Circuit held a distribution agreement including transfer of title to the distributor and exclusivity in the United States for three years to be an “offer for sale” under the on-sale bar. In The Medicines Company v.… Read More

Patent That Survived Alice Is Not Obvious

A little less than a year after finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159, directed to an inertial tracking system, were patent-eligible under the Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the… Read More

Patent Eligibility and Obviousness in a Covered Business Method Patent Review

The limits of patent eligibility continue to be a major hurtle for patent owners whose patents are subject to Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM) at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In IBG LLC v. Trading… Read More

Low Bar for USPTO to Show Motivation to Combine

A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates perils of trying to show that patent claims are non-obvious by arguing that references would not have been combined.  In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions. LLC v. Matal, No. 2015-1928 (F… Read More

When Is Hindsight Impermissible in an Obviousness Rejection?

According to the PTAB, impermissible hindsight can be found in an obviousness analysis that modifies a reference without providing a rationale for such modification independent of the patent sought to be invalidated. In Apple Inc.… Read More

Federal Circuit: No “Teaching Away” Without Discouragement

The University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (“Maryland”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,673,532 B2 (“the ‘532 patent”), recently lost the ‘532 patent when the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circ… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

The patent system is designed to protect one invention per patent. In prosection, the Patent Office may enforce this rule by restricting the claims that will be examined. During the August webinar, Mark St. Amour of Bejin Bieneman will discuss the in…Register

Subscribe