The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of a key claim term in a patent directed to a method for fabricating a self-aligned contact hole in a semiconductor circuit was overbroad in light of the actual claim language and specification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. Because a prior art…

Decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in three interference proceedings between Stanford University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (“CUHK”)—in which the Board found that methods of testing for fetal aneuploidies in DNA samples drawn from maternal blood were unpatentable for lack of written description—have been vacated by the U.S. Court of…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in instituting Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review and finding several claims of a financing method patent owned by Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The Board correctly rejected CAC’s…

By Annsley Merelle Ward On 22 May 2107, the US Supreme Court unanimously put limits on where patentees can commence patent infringement proceedings in the US.  In the case, TC Heartland challenged Kraft Heinz’s decision to commence patent infringement proceedings against it in Delaware, arguing that the case should be transferred to its home court in Indiana….

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erroneously construed the term “aseptic” in an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent for a method of aseptically bottling sterilized food, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Board erred in construing the term as incorporating “any applicable United States FDA standard” rather…

To the extent that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not provide an explanation for its obviousness rejection of 13 claims of a Securus patent on a system and method for reviewing monitored conversations and identifying items of interest, the ruling was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal…

The federal district court in Tyler, Texas, correctly denied Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.’s (“Core Wireless’s”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple infringed a claim of a Core Wireless patent directed to a means for sending packet data from a mobile station such as a cellular telephone to a cellular system or…

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding challenging a SimpleAir patent that described a method of transmitting data to remote computing devices, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in concluding that IPR petitioner Google failed to establish that a combination of prior art references rendered the challenged claims unpatentably obvious, the U.S….

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, did not abuse its discretion in finding that Bayer CropScience’s infringement suit against agrochemical rival Dow AgroSciences over soybean gene technology qualified as an “exceptional case” warranting an award of attorney fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it concluded that the claims of a patent relating to the use of descriptive text combined with a rollover viewing area in the user interface of an Internet search engine were unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for…