Category: prior art
-
Preexamination IV: Using AI to Pressure-Test Inventions for Patent-Worthiness
—
by
in AI assisted patent analysis, AI assisted Patent Generation, Artificial Intelligence and Patents, Artificial Intelligence for Examination of Patent Applications, Artificial Intelligence for Patents, claim challenges, Patent generation to avoid validity challenges, Patent Portfolio Management, Preexamination, prior artSeries note. This is the fourth post in the Preexamination series, following Part I,Part II, and Part III. From valid to worth owning The first three installments used AI to pressure-test claims against the prior art so that what gets filed is more likely to survive examination and challenge. Validity is necessary. It is not…
-
Preexamination: Seeing the Art Before the Office Does
—
by
in AI assisted patent analysis, AI assisted Patent Generation, America Invents Act, Artificial Intelligence and Patents, Artificial Intelligence for Examination of Patent Applications, Artificial Intelligence for Patents, claim amendments, claim challenges, Examination Automation, inter partes review, IPR, Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learning (ML), Patent generation to avoid validity challenges, Patent Portfolio Management, Post Grant Review, Preexamination, prior art, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, Synthetic ExaminationFor as long as people have recorded what they know, two capabilities have raced each other: the rate at which we generate information, and the ability to find and make sense of what we already have. Neither has held the lead for long. Every leap in one exposes the inadequacy of the other. The field…
-
Federal Circuit Weighs in on Exceptional Case Determinations in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV and Dish
A recent Federal Circuit decision provided some additional insight into exceptional case determinations in patent infringement disputes. In Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, the Federal Circuit reviewed an award of attorneys’ fees granted to DISH and related Sling entities (collectively, DISH) by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Realtime Adaptive…
-
A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Finding of Unpatentability Without Remand in DSS v. Apple
In DSS Technology Management v. Apple Inc., a split panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of patentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or the Board), but did so without remanding the case back to the Board for further findings. In DSS, the Federal Circuit considered two inter partes review decisions finding…
-
Complex Claim Construction Issues in Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic
—
by
A recent Federal Circuit case demonstrates the complexity of resolving difficult claim construction issues in multiple agency and court proceedings. In Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic the Federal Circuit declined to apply its own prior claim interpretation of the same term of the same claims of the same patent. U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (“the ’231 patent”) entitled “Microelectromechanical System…
-
Shire’s Granted Motion to Amend Offers Additional Insight Into PTAB Amendment Practice
When a patent undergoes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Patent Owner has an opportunity to file a motion to amend claims so that a substitute claim can be proposed for each claim sought to be amended. Stakeholders, and even some jurists, have been critical of the PTAB for denying the majority…
-
PTAB Narrows Its Preliminary Claim Interpretation To Uphold Cellular Patent
In July, 2014 Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”). In February, 2015, the Board instituted trial on claims 1 and 2 based on obviousness grounds, but denied institution of obviousness…
-
Are Patent-Friendly PTAB Decisions On the Rise?
Patent litigation changed with passage of the America Invents Act. Overnight the PTAB became a new venue for challenging patent claims using IPRs, CBMs and PGRs. The initial reaction by the patent bar to the PTAB’s “take charge” approach to instituting review and canceling patent claims was met with approval by businesses under attack by…
-
Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights
—
by
in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generallyWhen patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims. But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult to prove noninfringement and instead may have to rely on a showing of invalidity to avoid…
-
IPRs And Settlement of Patent Infringement Cases
The passage of the AIA is still relatively recent, yet statistics are starting to emerge that demonstrate the effective use of IPRs to settle patent infringement cases. IAM magazine recently published an interesting report by Unified Patents showing that IPRs have the effect of increasing the median time to settle litigations (from 211 to 420 days), but when viewed…