The CAFC Vacated the Northern District of California’s Claim Construction Because the District Court Improperly Limited the Claims Based on Prosecution History Disclaimer

Tech Properties v. Huawei (2016-1306), March 3, 2017.  Before Judges Moore, Wallach, and Chen. Takeaway: A district court may only limit claims based on prosecution disclaimer to the extent that the patentee makes clear and unmistakable disclaimers. If a district court limits the claims of a patent more narrowly than …

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 …

The Federal Circuit Finds Standing to Appeal Reexamination Decisions Even Though the Reexamination Requestor Had Not Been Sued For Infringement At the Time the Reexaminations Were Filed and Decided, but Nonetheless Dismissed the Appeal as Moot Due to Patentee’s Covenant Not to Sue

PPG INDUS., INC. v. VALSPAR SOURCING, INC.: Feb. 9, 2017. Before Newman, Chen, and Stoll. Takeaways: A reexamination requestor has standing to appeal the PTAB’s reexamination decisions even though the requestor had not been sued for infringement at the time the reexaminations were initiated and decided, if the reexamination requestor …

Obviousness Rejections Must Articulate Rationale To Support a “Common Sense” Motivation To Combine References

  IN RE VAN OS: Jan. 3, 2017. Before Newman (concurring in part and dissenting in part), Moore, and Wallach. Takeaway: Obviousness findings grounded in “common sense” must contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some rational underpinning why common sense compels a finding of obviousness. Procedural Posture: Marcel Van Os …