Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit: Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot Provide a "Basis" for a Ground of Unpatentability in an IPR, But Can be Cited for Other Purposes
When Congress enacted the America Invents Act and created the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it limited an IPR petition to challenging patentability "only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 [i.e., anticipation and obviousness] and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Can the patentee's admissions as to the scope and content of prior art in its own patent or patent application — commonly referred to as applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) — be used in an IPR? According to the Federal Circuit, the answer to that question is "yes" — but not as a "basis" for a ground of unpatentability.
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2020-1558, -1559, 2022 WL 288013 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2022), Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review, which challenged different claims of the same patent. Both petitions asserted the same two prior-art grounds against the different challenged claims: 1) obviousness over the combination of the "Steinacker" patent, the "Doyle" patent, and the "Park" publication; and 2) obviousness over the combination of the "Majcherczak" publication and AAPA consisting of "Figure 1 and its accompanying description" in the challenged patent.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.