Fed Circuit Watch: Patent Troll Thwarts Google’s Assertion of Claim Preclusion

fed circuit watch patent res judicata terminal disclaimer

On March 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a ruling that will stymie Google’s efforts to shake off a pesky serial patent litigator deemed a “patent troll” by the tech press.  That case is SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC.[1]  This is the fourth litigated iteration filed by SimpleAir against Google, …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Not Bound by Fed Circuit Precedent

102 112 collateral estoppel fed circuit watch patent Written Description

On March 1, 2018, in a fairly convoluted and highly fractured decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was not bound to collateral estoppel principles which form a long line of Fed Circuit case precedence.  That case is Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Motion-Tracking Patent Beats Obviousness Finding

103 fed circuit watch motivation to combine obviousness patent

This is the second of a trio of recent Federal Circuit precedential cases that have dealt with the law of obviousness that we will review for this blog.  Here, in Elbit Systems of America, LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a motion-tracking patent …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Still Another §101 Decision Signals Sea Change

101 fed circuit watch patent patent eligible subject matter

On February 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,[1] which signals a possible sea change in the §101 patent-eligibility analysis and potentially give patent holders some ammunition to fight invalidation of their patents.  This opinion also tracks the rather complex federal court …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Who Let the Cat Out? Faulty USPTO Obviousness Analysis

103 commercial success fed circuit watch motivation to combine obviousness patent

On February 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,[1] where a Fed Circuit panel criticized the invalidation of all 38 claims of Polaris’ patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over different combinations of prior art based on the PTAB’s messy §103 analysis. …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Another §101 Decision, Different Rationale, May Signal Future Changes to Patent-Eligibility Analysis

101 112 fed circuit watch indefiniteness patent patent eligible subject matter

As of February 14, 2018, at last count, there have been six substantive opinions rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating to 35 U.S.C. §101, creating an unusually large body of §101 jurisprudence within only six weeks of the calendar year.  Two of these opinions, Move, Inc. v. RE/MAX Int’l, Inc., …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Distribution Agreement Is Offer for Sale for On-Sale Bar Analysis

102 fed circuit watch on-sale bar patent

  On February 6, 2018, an interesting ruling was handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.,[1] the Fed Circuit held that a distribution agreement could constitute an on-sale bar for purposes of §102 invalidation.  This appeal is a further remand of an earlier en …

Continue Reading

IP Practicum: Failure to Check Box on USPTO Form Can Affect Patent Term

fed circuit watch IP Practicum patent PCT PTA

On February 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Actelion Pharm., Ltd. v. Matal.[1]  This case deals with the sometimes mundane aspects of filling out the proper forms required for filing with the USPTO, and failure to do so can have major impacts downstream during and post-prosecution. The facts of …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Pre-Institution Disclaimer Creates Estoppel for Patent Owner

disclaimer estoppel fed circuit watch IPR patent

On January 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,[1] holding that the patent owner’s pre-IPR-institution statutory disclaimer resulting in an adverse judgment has the effect of estoppel against the patent owner. The facts are as follows. Smith & Nephew filed an IPR against …

Continue Reading