Expenses Incurred by Government Attorneys during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 Appeal Can Be Recovered by the USPTO

NANTKWEST, INC. v. MATAL: June 23, 2017.  Before Prost, Dyk, and Stoll.   Takeaway: Expenses incurred by USPTO during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 appeal include a pro-rata share of the incurred attorneys’ fees. The American Rule denying attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party does not apply when applicable statute specifically and …

The CAFC Vacated a PTAB Finding of Obviousness Because, By Providing an Overly Broad Constructions, the PTAB Read Key Limitations out of the Claims

Los Angeles Biomedical v. Eli Lilly (2016-1518), February 28, 2017.  Before Judges Newman (concurring-in part and dissenting-in-part), Bryson, and Moore. Takeaway: The PTAB’s overly-broad claim constructions resulted in a decision that lacked the necessary factual support needed to find the claims unpatentable as being obvious under the narrower CAFC constructions. …

When the Examiner Agrees With an Attorney’s Argument Presented in an Inter Partes Reexamination, But Cites to No Substantial Evidence, There is no Factual Basis for the Examiner’s Finding That Patent Claims are Unpatentable as Being

Icon Health v. Strava, (2016-1475) February 27, 2017.  Before Judges O’Malley (concurring-in part and dissenting-in-part), Reyna, and Wallach. Takeaway: In order to withstand a challenge on appeal, a determination by the PTAB that the claims of a patent would have been obvious must be supported by substantial evidence, and be …

Federal Circuit Orders Google Patent Case Transferred from E.D. Tex.

IN RE GOOGLE: Feb. 21, 2017. Before Prost, Lourie, and Linn (dissenting). Takeaway: On a motion to transfer, the existence of related, co-pending litigations does not automatically outweigh all other factors and considerations in the transfer analysis. Procedural Posture: Google petitioned the CAFC for a writ of mandamus following denial …

Web Page Authentication Patent is Outside the Scope of CBM Review

SECURE AXCESS v. PNC BANK: Feb. 21, 2017. Before Lourie (dissenting), Plager, and Taranto. Takeaway: To qualify for CBM review, a patent must claim “the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” Claims that are only “incidental to a financial activity” do not qualify. Procedural Posture: Secure …