Microbot Medical Inc. announced that it entered into an agreement with CardioSert Ltd. to acquire CardioSert’s patented guidewire technology, including R&D information, technical know-how, and intellectual property.

En banc, Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Federal Circuit can review the Board’s decision whether an IPR is time barred under § 315(b).

En banc, Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Federal Circuit can review the Board’s decision whether an IPR is time barred under § 315(b).

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).