by Albert Liou | Apr 12, 2021 | Prior Art Issues
By Albert Liou and Jen Bachorik – We recently wrote about the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Donner Technology, LLC. v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, where the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of an obviousness challenge due to its finding that the prior art...
by Matthew Johnson | Dec 16, 2020 | Prior Art Issues
By Sachin Patel* and Matt Johnson – Be careful not to confuse reprints with new editions when considering books as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2019-1734, 2020 WL 6937852 (Nov. 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit...
by Matthew Johnson | Dec 3, 2020 | Prior Art Issues
By Ana Teixeira* and Matt Johnson – “Printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is typically construed to encompass any type of document, as long as the document is “publicly accessible.” See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....
by Matthew Johnson | Nov 11, 2020 | Prior Art Issues
By Matt Johnson – One of the steps in a proper obviousness analysis is to ascertain the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The...
by Carl Kukkonen | Nov 6, 2020 | Prior Art Issues
By Carl Kukkonen – On August 18, 2020, the USPTO issued guidance regarding the reliance on Applicant Admitted prior art (AAPA). Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), IPRs may be instituted only “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed...
by John Evans, Ph.D. | Sep 22, 2020 | Prior Art Issues
By Nate Andrews and John Evans – Deciding who invented patents can be “one of muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law.” Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D. Pa. 1972). But identifying who contributed...
