In a short, unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that “secret sales” count as prior art under the on-sale bar. The Court, in the anticipated case Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, found that Helsinn’s agreemen…
Read More
Does an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in which a single reference discloses each element require a motivation to combine with another reference? In Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit said no, upholding…
Read More
In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, No. 2017-2265 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit construed a pair of claim terms under their plain and ordinary meaning in reversing summary judgment that Apple was n…
Read More
A claim that required a specific condition overcame prior art that merely disclosed an embodiment resulting in satisfaction of the condition. In re Facebook, Inc., No. 2017-2524 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2018) (nonprecedential) (C.J. Pr…
Read More
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
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
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
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
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
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
