Posts Tagged: "obviousness"

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed an invalidity decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. Considering the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, the CAFC agreed with the PTAB’s construction of the disputed claim term, “human antibodies,” and affirmed the holding that the patent in suit was invalid as obvious.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Biogen MA, Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Biogen. The New Jersey court had found no anticipation of Biogen’s patent claims, overturning a jury’s finding that the claims were anticipated by the prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision, which turned on the issue of applying a product-by-process novelty analysis to certain nested claim limitations, said that a reasonable jury could find the claims anticipated and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.

In the latest episode of a long-running saga between Apple and Voip-Pal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday denied Apple’s request to reverse the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) determination that 15 claims of Voip-Pal’s voice over IP communications patents were not invalid for obviousness. The Court also affirmed the PTAB’s sanctions order, which Apple had appealed because the Board did not enter adverse judgment against Voip-Pal or vacate the final written decisions and assign a new panel. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna.

In an earlier article, “Tips for Selecting a ‘Lead Compound’ in Compound Claim Challenges,” I introduced an approach derived by U.S. federal courts called the “lead compound analysis,” and discussed the first stage of the analysis – “Lead Selection”. This post discusses the second stage – “Lead Development”. The lead development analysis involves assessment of the efforts required for modifying the lead compound to arrive at the claimed compound. As with the case of lead selection, the lead development also involves reviewing the similarities and dissimilarities between the lead and the claimed compounds. The courts have approached this inquiry broadly as the obviousness analysis under the KSR framework (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and the Graham factors (Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)).

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that secondary consideration evidence is an integral part of an obviousness analysis (indeed, it “may be the most pertinent, probative, and revealing evidence available to the decision maker in reaching a conclusion on the obviousness/nonobviousness issue”) and thus has mandated consideration of such evidence in assessing obviousness (Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) similarly requires consideration of secondary consideration evidence (MPEP 2145 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June. 2020). This requirement makes sense. Among the many benefits to a patent challenger, IPRs have also effectively provided petitioners (i.e., patent challengers) with a shield against disclosure of evidence that might directly undermine their obviousness arguments – evidence that they typically would have been forced to disclose in district court litigation.

On January 9, 2019, Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (“Moderna”) filed a petition requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,058,069 (the ‘069 patent) owned by Arbutus Biopharma. The ‘069 patent is directed to lipid nanoparticle technology, the same technology that Moderna is using in its efforts to develop a vaccine for COVID-19. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review, but in their decision last week, determined that Moderna had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-22 of the ‘069 patent are unpatentable under 35 USC § 103.

The Federal Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found FanDuel had failed to prove that claim 6 of Interactive Games’ U.S. Patent No. 8,771,058, was obvious in view of the asserted prior art. FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games, LLC (CAFC, July 29, 2020). FanDuel appealed to the Federal Circuit on the ground that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and also challenged its factual findings. Judge Dyk dissented in part, saying he would have found the claim obvious, and that the obviousness standard used by the PTAB was overly rigid and not in the spirit of KSR v. Teleflex.

On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in B/E Aerospace v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.  In particular, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion that the asserted patent claims would have been obvious because a modification of the prior art was nothing more than a predictable application of a known technology and because a modification would have been common sense.

On June 25, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed an appeal from two final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Shoes By Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, wherein the CAFC held that the PTAB did not err in concluding that the claims of two patents owned by Shoes by Firebug (Firebug) were obvious in view of the prior art.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that certain claims of Nike, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,598 and 8,266,749 are not unpatentable as obvious. The Court also disagreed with Nike’s argument that Adidas did not have standing to appeal because it could not prove that it had an “injury in fact.” The opinion was authored by Judge Moore.  

On May 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Uber Technologies, Inc., v. X One, Inc. with respect to one claim limitation and remanded the case to the PTAB to analyze the remaining limitations of the challenged claims in the first instance.  In its decision, the PTAB determined that an asserted limitation of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,593 (the ’593 patent), which is directed to a “Buddy watch application” for a mobile device, was not obvious in view of the prior art.

Last week, Consumer 2.0, Inc. d/b/a Rently filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to review its recent Rule 36 judgment affirming a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that Rently’s patent claims were ineligible. The district court found the claims, which were directed to “the use of lockboxes able to recognize time-limited codes and coordination of those codes with software to facilitate secure automated entry”, ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Among other arguments, Rently noted that the case raised multiple issues that required en banc review, including whether unconventionality alone is sufficient to satisfy the inventive concept requirement under Section 101, whether the determination of unconventionality is one of law or fact, and whether a court is permitted to conduct a quasi-Section 103 analysis of obviousness without the protections against hindsight bias.

When can an inherent property add patentable weight in the context of obviousness? Over the years, the Federal Circuit has shed light on this question in a number of cases. Persion Pharmaceuticals v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Docket No. 2018-2361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019) (Persion v. Alvogen) is the most recent decision to address this question. In Persion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,265,760 (“the ’760 patent”) and 9,339,499 (“the ’499 patent”) are invalid as obvious because the feature at issue was inherent in the prior art.

On January 9, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, holding claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,106 (the ‘106 patent) invalid as obvious. The ‘106 patent, owned by Hospira, Inc. (Hospira), is one of many patents covering Hospira’s dexmedetomidine products under the brand Precedex, such as the ready-to-use Precedex Premix product. Hospira sued Fresenius Kabi USA LLC (Fresenius) for infringement of claim 6 of the ‘106 patent, over its filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) regarding its ready-to-use generic dexmedetomidine product.

In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the United States Supreme Court discussed legal principles of obviousness in the patent context. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court: “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” This simile, comparing obviousness analysis to the fitting together of pieces of a puzzle, has been referenced and quoted by a number of trial and appellate courts. Expert witnesses have used it in their testimonies. It also appears twice in the current Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). With due respect to former Justice Kennedy, may we dispense with this terrible analogy? Although it has at least one redeeming aspect, the puzzle simile does more to confuse than to enlighten.