Before Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Extrinsic evidence can be used to find that an allegedly anticipating reference necessarily includes relevant claim limitations. 

Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings in a single prior art document that a skilled artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.

Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings in a single prior art document that a skilled artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.

In the recent Two-Way Media v. Comcast decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that evidence of non-obviousness was irrelevant to patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework.[1]  The Federal Circuit’s holding in Two-Way Media is consistent with the prior Federal Circuit and Supreme Court cases holding that novelty and even groundbreaking brilliance may be irrelevant to patent eligibility.[2]  However, this precedent seems to be in tension with other cases stating that patent eligibility depends on a comparison between the claimed subject matter and the prior art.[3]  One way to reconcile this tension may be to recognize the distinct questions that must be answered when comparing patent claims to prior art for novelty, non-obviousness, and eligibility purposes, respectively.

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended claims are unpatentable.  This burden applies equally to indefiniteness challenges.

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended claims are unpatentable.  This burden applies equally to indefiniteness challenges.

The PTAB issued and order stating that it would grant Patent Owner’s motion to amend claims upon Patent Owner accepting further claim amendments suggested by the judges in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, IPR2016-01249, Paper 46 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017).

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Summary:  For divided infringement under § 271(a), an accused infringer does not avoid liability merely because the third party is not obligated to perform the patented steps.  As long as the third party must perform the patented steps to receive value from the accused infringer, the third-party’s actions may be attributed to the accused infringer.

Virtual reality is not just a growing trend in the entertainment industry, but is now reaching the healthcare field. As the technology improves and develops, the uses of virtual reality expand for doctors, students, and patients.

Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary:  The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the First Amendment.  This follows six months after the Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), that the bar against registering  disparaging trademarks also violates the First Amendment.