In a dispute between patent holder B/E Aerospace and C&D Zodiac that was instituted by C&D’s petition for inter partes review of B/E’s patent for saving space in airplanes, the Patent trail and Appeal Board did not err in concluding that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of…

Following inter partes review of several claims of a patent directed to a trigger/seal mechanism for a beverage container, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly applied the broadest reasonable in construing a connection limitation disclosed in the challenged claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided. The Board’s construction was…

In the US, the potential for forum shopping in patent litigation has recently been reduced by the TC Heartland ruling of the Supreme Court. But what can be expected at the Unified Patent Court, with its central, regional and local divisions? Amandine Léonard, PhD researcher at the KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law, thinks the…

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of the term “body” disclosed in multiple claims of a downhole drilling tool patent has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as unreasonably overbroad and contrary to descriptions in the patent’s specification. The Board’s rejection of the challenged claims following inter partes…

Substantial evidence supported a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding a patent for an eyewear retention device unpatentable as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. A prior art device created by a fisherman and described in a newspaper article made use of a “resilient” retainer—as claimed by the…

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…

In paragraph 54 of its judgment of 12 July 2017, the UK Supreme Court wrote that “[…] notwithstanding what Lord Diplock said in Catnic [1982] RPC 183, 242, a problem of infringement is best approached by addressing two issues, each of which is to be considered through the eyes of the notional addressee of the…

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….