The Board’s Decision Finding Waterproof Leather Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Affirmed by the CAFC, a Person of Ordinary Skill Need Not Have the Same Motivation as the Patent’s Inventor

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. GEOX S.P.A.: No. 2016-1769; June 16, 2017.  Before Dyk, Moore, and Rena. Takeaway: The motivation to combine inquiry is not limited to the problem faced by the inventor of a patent. Procedural Posture: Outdry appealed from the Board’s decision in an IPR finding that claims 1-15 of its …

Unsupported Declaration by an Interested Party is Insufficient to Remove § 102(e) Prior Art Reference

EMERACHEM HOLDINGS, LLC, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.: No. 2016-1984; June 15, 2017.  Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Takeaway: An uncorroborated declaration by an interested inventor may not be sufficient to show that a reference is not “by another” for the purposes of removing the reference as prior art …

Federal Circuit Upholds Injunction and Comments Upon the Appropriate Test for Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents in Chemical Cases

MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD:  May 19, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore and Reyna.   Takeaway: CAFC ruled the district court did not err in granting preliminary injunction because the district court correctly determined defendant was unlikely to prove invalidity of one patent-in-suit, even though the district court did err …

Federal Circuit Reaffirms the Board’s Decision to Terminate a Reexamination As to Only Litigated Claims in a Civil Action

IN RE AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC: May 5, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, Stoll. Takeaway: The estoppel provision under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) does not extend to all parties and all claims, but rather only to an inter partes requester that was a party to the civil action (or its privies) …

Federal Circuit Affirms the PTAB’s Decision Finding the Patent Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Where the Patent Owner Did Not Demonstrate that the Board Violated the Administrative Procedure Act Requirements of Notice and an Opportunity to Respond

NOVARTIS AG, MITSUBISHI PHARMA CORP., v. TORRENT PHARM. LTD.:  April 12, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll. (precedential). Takeaways: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not violate the requirements of notice and an opportunity to respond found in the Administrative Procedure Act when it relied on a prior art …