Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: While obviousness of apparatus claims “capable of” a particular function may be shown by identifying a prior art reference that discloses an apparatus capable of performing the claimed function, obviousness of related method claims requires a motivation to actually use the prior art apparatus for the claimed function.
On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s determination of no interference-in-fact between the University of California (UC)’s application and the claims of twelve patents and one application owned by the Broad Institute.
Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Courts should not give too much weight to evidence purporting to show a lack of actual confusion in an ex parte proceeding.
Before Newman, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Pharmaceutical patents were obvious where the claims covered species of a genus taught by the prior art, the prior art taught achieving the claimed concentrations of the same compound but for a different indication, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed outcome. Evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness such as long-felt need carried diminished weight because there was a blocking patent that may have deterred investment in the “blocked” invention.
Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Summary: Objective indicia of nonobviousness cannot be dismissed merely because all the ingredients in a formulation were generally known and nothing prevented a skilled artisan from combining them.
Before Prost, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB may initially accept an IPR petitioner’s identification of real-parties-in-interest, but if and when a patent owner produces evidence disputing the identification, the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the correct real-parties-in-interest were identified.
Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the District of Delaware.
Summary: Plain language claim construction will not be narrowed based on the prosecution history unless the patentee clearly and explicitly disclaims claim scope.
On August 23, 2018, Dthera Sciences announced that the Food and Drug Administration granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to its Alzheimer’s disease therapeutic device. According to the FDA, Breakthrough Therapy designation is intended to help patients have more timely access to breakthrough technologies that provide treatment for diseases for which no approved treatment exists or which offer significant advantages over existing treatments. A therapy that receives Breakthrough Therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt.
Blockchain is a technological innovation underlying cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Given the importance of cryptocurrencies not only for buying and selling goods and services, but also as funding and investment vehicles, the underlying blockchain technology is obviously of interest in the fintech space.
