ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The same Board panel can make the decision to institute inter partes review and the final determination

by Steve Driskill | Jan 13, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure

Neither the AIA statute nor the Constitution precludes the same panel of the Board that made the decision to institute inter partes review from making the final determination. Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from inter partes review proceedings at the...

IN RE URBANSKI (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A proposed combination need not be operable for all of the benefits disclosed in the modified reference

by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness

A proposed combination of prior art references does not have to be operable for all of the benefits disclosed in the reference being modified. Here, for example, a prima facie case of obviousness was found to be unrebutted by a showing that certain stability benefits...

WI-LAN, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Even small differences can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents

by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2016 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation

Even small differences in operation or design can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, a parallel architecture that inverted the order of operations for data encoding as compared to the claimed invention, and...

REDLINE DETECTION, LLC v. STAR ENVIROTECH, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Timeliness and relevancy alone are not sufficient to ensure entry of supplemental information for IPR

by Steve Driskill | Dec 31, 2015 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure

Timeliness and relevancy alone are not sufficient to ensure entry under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) of supplemental information for IPR proceedings where the information reasonably could have been submitted with the IPR petition itself. Here, for example, the later...

VEHICLE INTELLIGENCE v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The use of special-purpose hardware without implementation details is not sufficient for patent eligibility

by Steve Driskill | Dec 28, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

The mere use of special-purpose hardware without providing implementation details is not sufficient to transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Here, for example, although the court acknowledged that execution of a vehicle operator...