On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in In re Brandt, which is just another case in a long line of cases dealing with ranges and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The facts are as follows. Gregory A. Brandt and John B. Letts, the application-at-issue’s two inventors, and Firestone …
Category: obviousness
Fed Circuit Watch: Common Sense Cannot Replace Evidentiary Support
On March 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down DSS Techs. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,[1] reversing two IPR decisions in Apple’s favor on a DSS-owned patent which the PTAB ruled as unpatentable as obvious. The Fed Circuit panel went to lengths to call out the PTAB’s poor analysis and …
Fed Circuit Watch: Google Upends Patent Troll’s Claims as Obvious
This is the third recent precedential case issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in January that disposed of patent claims as obvious. This case is noteworthy because the losing party is an alleged patent troll, and the winning party is none other than Google. The case, Arendi S.a.r.l. v. Google, LLC,[1] …
Fed Circuit Watch: Motion-Tracking Patent Beats Obviousness Finding
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 …
Fed Circuit Watch: Who Let the Cat Out? Faulty USPTO Obviousness Analysis
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. …