Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Intellectual PropertyThe Intellectual Property StrategistColumns & Departments

IP News

By Jeff Ginsberg and J. Jay Cho
April 30, 2025

Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIA

On March 24, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham issued a precedential opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in In re Riggs, No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). Appellants in Riggs are the named inventors listed on U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678 (the 678 Application). Riggs, slip op. at 2. They appealed, among other rulings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that a published patent application qualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(1). Id. (The inventor-appellants raised three issues on appeal, one of which was an issue preclusion matter. Riggs, slip op. at 7-10. That issue is not discussed here.) The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the Board did an incomplete analysis in determining whether the published application did, in fact, qualify as prior art under §102(e). Id.

During prosecution of the 678 Application, the examiner rejected certain claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0049622 A1 (Lettich), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/200,035 (the Lettich Provisional). Id. at 5. Lettich qualifies as prior art to the claims of the 678 Application only if it is entitled to the priority date of the Lettich Provisional. See, id. at 10. The Board reasoned that because the Lettich Provisional provides adequate support for claim 1 of Lettich, Lettich is prior art against the claims of the 678 Application. Id. at 11. The Board then sustained the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. Id. at 2.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

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 Image

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 Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.