Home | PTAB Digest

Loading data, please wait...

Recent Decisions (click on a decision to view the annotation)

Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's finding that certain challenged claims were unpatentable because the Board failed to articulate any reason supporting its decision.

Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Duke University

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's obviousness determination because Petitioner's expert failed to address the knowledge and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art and what a POSA would have found obvious.

Key-Bar, LLC v. Curv Brands, LLC

Board's denial of institution of a design patent focused on Petitioner's failure to address each design difference between the prior art and patent and to explain why it would have been obvious to modify the prior art to reach the claimed design.

Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.

The Board denied institution because Patent Owner had disclaimed the only claims in the patent directed to a financial service.

Strava, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s rejection of claims and remanded, holding that Agency may base decision on, and incorporate by reference factual findings, but may not adopt and rely on attorney argument as basis of decision.

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.

The Board granted Petitioner's Motion to Submit Supplemental Information because the information did not change the instituted grounds nor did it change the evidence originally submitted in the Petition.

David’s Bridal, Inc. v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc.

The Board found that a design divisional patent had a pre-AIA effective filing date and was thus ineligible for PGR despite including new figures, because the priority application supported the challenged claim.

Ex Parte Secure Axcess, LLC

Federal Circuit reversed PTAB's decision that the challenged patent was subject to CBM review where the PTAB improperly considered information outside the claims and the specification to determine the patent's CBM status.

Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc v. Apple Inc.

The Court reversed the Board's ruling that a patent claim would not have been obvious and held claim obvious where evidence was one-sided and showed that the modification claimed was within POSA's skill.

IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc.

After oral argument, the Board followed a (nonprecendential) Federal Circuit decision involving the same patent in finding the challenged claims to be patent eligible.

About the Editors

Analysis

Executive Editors:

Wayne Stacy Orion Armon

Contributing Editors:

Resources