Klarquist News & Insights

PTAB

The reason a claim is obvious isn’t always obvious–Federal Circuit requires PTAB (and, in turn, petitioner) to spell it out

In the nonprecedential opinion of Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision finding all claims of Cutsforth’s patent obvious over the prior art. The panel (C.J. Prost, Clevenger, and Moore) found that the “broad, conclusory statements” in the Board’s Final Written Decision were insufficient to support its finding of obviousness. […]

Read More

PTAB

Supreme Court accepts first IPR review–will the BRI standard survive?

On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee. The questions presented are: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, in IPR proceedings, the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning. Whether the […]

Read More

PTAB

No need for PTAB to switch horses midstream: same panel can pen both institution and final written decisions

In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, the Federal Circuit confirmed the PTO’s policy of having a single panel conduct post-grant proceedings, from institution through final written decision. Over Judge Newman’s dissent, the majority of Judges Dyk and Taranto held this policy does not violate due process rights to an impartial decision-maker for the final written […]

Read More

©2018 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Site Map