A Photobooth Can Screen for Skin Cancer, But Federal Circuit Says it is Unpatentable Under § 103

Can you succeed in an argument for obviousness by combining a skin cancer detection device with a device for creating made-to-measure clothing or custom avatar?  The Federal Circuit says yes. In a precedential opinion, the Federa… Read More

References Still “Printed Publications” and Publicly Accessible under § 102 on a Poorly Designed Website

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that documents presented at an industry task force meeting and later made available on the task force website… Read More

Design Choice and Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at the Federal Circuit: Uber Tech., Inc. v. X One, Inc.

The Federal Circuit has reversed a PTAB determination of non-obviousness because, where the PTAB found no motivation to combine references, the Federal Circuit found a combination of references presented a simple design choice bet… Read More

CAFC: Obviousness and Non-Limiting Reference Numerals in Claims: Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC.

The Federal Circuit, in vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision in an inter partes review (IPR) that claims in a patent were not obvious, held that, for an obviousness inquiry, reference numerals in the clai… Read More

Prior Art Anticipates Claims because “A” means “One or More”

The Central District of California held that claims directed to “‘an induction actuated container which is capable of automatically opening when a user is approaching, and automatically closing when the user has left’” are… Read More