The document discusses differing interpretations of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel between district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Currently, district courts interpret estoppel narrowly under Shaw Industries, only applying it to grounds instituted in IPR. In contrast, the PTAB broadly interprets estoppel to also include grounds that reasonably could have been raised in IPR. The Federal Circuit's guidance is needed to clarify the scope of estoppel and better align interpretations with legislative intent.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Double Patenting Applies With Distinct Inventive Entities
• Inducement Judgment Remanded in Light of Akamai
• First Sale Doctrine Applies to Sales Made Abroad
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Doctrine of Equivalents: What Constitutes a Disclosed but not Claimed Equivalent?
When “Each” Means “Every”: Apple Loses a Round in Its Ongoing Battle with Samsung
Capturing Advances in Technology Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
Is a “Height Adjustment Mechanism” a Definite Structure, or a Means-Plus- Function?
PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Evidence of Deliberate Decision to Withhold Reference Required for Inequitable Conduct
Licensee Bears Burden of Proving Non-Infringemet in Some Circumstances
No Inequitable Conduct for Failure to Disclose Litigation Involving Parent of Application
Mere Possibility of Allegedly Infringing Activity Insufficient for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
Doctrine of Equivalents Is Available for “Substantially All” Limitation
Court Finds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claim Unreasonable
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Partner Michael Fuller wrote an article for the Bloomberg BNA - Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report discussing how the PTAB may be taking a more balanced approach in biotech and pharmaceutical IPRs.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction
• Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds
• Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards
• Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Double Patenting Applies With Distinct Inventive Entities
• Inducement Judgment Remanded in Light of Akamai
• First Sale Doctrine Applies to Sales Made Abroad
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Doctrine of Equivalents: What Constitutes a Disclosed but not Claimed Equivalent?
When “Each” Means “Every”: Apple Loses a Round in Its Ongoing Battle with Samsung
Capturing Advances in Technology Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
Is a “Height Adjustment Mechanism” a Definite Structure, or a Means-Plus- Function?
PTO Invalidity Ruling Stands Despite Prior Court Ruling of No Invalidity
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Evidence of Deliberate Decision to Withhold Reference Required for Inequitable Conduct
Licensee Bears Burden of Proving Non-Infringemet in Some Circumstances
No Inequitable Conduct for Failure to Disclose Litigation Involving Parent of Application
Mere Possibility of Allegedly Infringing Activity Insufficient for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
Doctrine of Equivalents Is Available for “Substantially All” Limitation
Court Finds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claim Unreasonable
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge
• Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent
• District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential Documents Secret
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Partner Michael Fuller wrote an article for the Bloomberg BNA - Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report discussing how the PTAB may be taking a more balanced approach in biotech and pharmaceutical IPRs.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
Cancellation of Claims by PTO Binding on District Court
Claims Reciting Method Free of an Agent is Invalid Where Patent Does Not Mention Agent
Defendant Did Not Have Proper Notice of Products Accused of Infringement
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction
• Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds
• Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards
• Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry
This document summarizes several recent Federal Circuit cases involving issues of patent validity and infringement. The first case summary discusses the Federal Circuit affirming a district court decision upholding patent claims covering the drug Abilify as non-obvious and not invalid for double patenting. The second case discusses the Federal Circuit vacating and remanding a rejection of reissue claims for failure to properly apply the recapture rule. The third case discusses the Federal Circuit affirming a rejection of claims as inherently anticipated by a prior art clinical trial protocol.
The marcus evans 5th Product and Pipeline Enhancement for Generics Conference hosted industry leaders within the Generic Pharmaceutical, Branded Pharmaceutical and API industries operating globally. These leaders shared best practices, strategies and tools on portfolio management and business strategy, as well as legal, intellectual property and patent issues.
Knobbe Martens' attorneys presented on the following topic:
*Analyzing Recent Updates to the Hatch-Waxman Act to Grasp Future Impacts and Challenges
*Studying recent changes that could impact the industry, including 180-day exclusivity and complications regarding patent listings
*Drawing lessons from the close relationship between the patenting of generic products and FDA regulatory approval to pinpoint areas of improvement
*Considering the impact biosimilar products could have on market entry and patent strategies
*Reviewing both real-life rulings and hypotheticals regarding Hatch-Waxman litigation to identify future strategies
The document summarizes recent developments in patent law from Supreme Court cases and post-grant proceedings that impact medical device companies. Key points include:
1) The Supreme Court has made it more difficult to obtain and enforce patents by raising the bar for what constitutes patentable subject matter and claim clarity, and making it easier to recover attorney's fees.
2) Recent litigation and settlements between medical device companies highlight the ongoing battles over patents for pioneering heart valve technologies.
3) In the two years since being established, inter partes reviews have led to about 60% of challenged claims being found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The extraordinary two-year legal saga of Pintrips has ended in a California U.S. federal court.
In a bench trial, a judge sided with Pintrips, ruling that the travel-planning site can’t be blocked from using its like-sounding name.
The judge found that Pintrips invented its name by its own efforts. He was persuaded by the evidence that “pin” has been a term in generic use among the computer savvy prior to the existence of Pinterest.
Two years ago Pinterest, which claims to be the country’s third-most visited social network, alleged that Pintrips chose a name similar to its own and thus infringed on its trademark.
But despite the risk of significant legal costs and distraction, Pintrips defended itself until the end, represented by the law firm Kenyon & Kenyon.
This document summarizes a presentation on recent patent law updates and trends for medical device companies. It discusses Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, including what they are, filing trends, and changes under the new Director of the Patent Office. It also summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the eligibility of temperature measurement patents and trends of decreased district court litigation due to IPRs. Finally, it discusses the importance of intellectual property for medical device companies and strategies for building a strong patent portfolio.
At a recent in-house CLE event, Joseph Re, Partner at Knobbe Martens, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2016.
At a recent Forresters And Knobbe Martens Seminar, Charlotte Teall (Forresters) and Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens) presented "Latest Developments in European Patent Law: How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe."
The Trademark Review is a monthly newsletter prepared by Knobbe Martens attorneys covering relevant and current issues in trademark law.
In this Issue:
• Ron Paul’s Complaint to Regain RonPaul.org Constitutes Reverse Domain Hijacking
• MOTT’s for Baby Food Is Considered Primarily Merely a Surname
• Company Uses More than Is Reasonably Necessary to Advertise that its Test Strips Work with Another’s Meters
At a recent in-house CLE event, John Sganga, Partner and the firm's Litigation Practice Group Chair, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2015.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve in terms of intellectual property law, the Los Angeles Business Journal once again turned to some of the leading IP attorneys and experts in the region to get their assessments regarding the current state of IP legislation, the new rules of copyright protection, licensing and technology, and the various trends that they have been observing, and in some cases, driving. Below is a series of questions the Business Journal posed to these experts and the unique responses they provided – offering a glimpse into the state of intellectual property law in 2014 – from the perspectives of those in the trenches of our region today.
On March 30 and 31, 2017, Knobbe Martens attorneys presented written and oral educational material at an IP Seminar Series “Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Protection for Chinese Enterprises” sponsored by CHOFN, a Chinese IP law firm in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China.
Starting May 13, significant changes in the law of design patents come into effect. First, the U.S. and Japan both join the Hague Agreement for the Registration of Industrial Designs. Second, all U.S. design patents filed May 13 or later will have a 15-year term from issuance. This is an increase from the current 14-year term. Third, starting May 13, applicants are no longer required to file a petition and pay fees to include color drawings in U.S. design applications.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) creates a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation and allows companies to file lawsuits in federal court. It expands protection of valuable intellectual property like customer lists, source code, formulas and manufacturing methods. The new law does not replace state laws but provides an additional avenue for protection and enforcement of trade secrets. Employers should notify employees about whistleblower protections under the DTSA and implement security measures like non-disclosure agreements and access controls to protect valuable proprietary information.
This document discusses patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions in the US. It provides an overview of the two-part test used to determine patent eligibility, where the claimed invention must not be directed to an abstract idea and must recite an inventive concept or something significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples are given of claims that have passed this test, such as those directed to improving computer functionality or applying an abstract idea in a specific technological way. Strategies are suggested for drafting claims and applications to address patent eligibility requirements.
Knobbe Martens Partners Catherine Holland, Lynda Zadra-Symes, Jeff Van Hoosear and Jonathan Hyman give insight into the major trademark law issues across multiple jurisdictions, covering: ownership and scope of trademarks, application for registration, appeal of failed applications, third-party opposition to registration, duration and maintenance of marks, assignment, markings, types of trademark enforcement proceedings, procedural format and timing, discovery, litigation costs, defenses and remedies and appeals.
Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Trademarks 2016, (published in September 2015) For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.
Knobbe Martens’ patent attorneys Russell Jeide and Scott Cromar hosted a seminar series on intellectual property basics for Temecula’s business community. Entrepreneurs, investors, startups, inventors and anyone interested in learning how intellectual property and patents can help their business will benefit from this presentation.
In view of the U.S. approval process for biosimilars, companies are gearing up to either produce their own biosimilar products, or to defend against their entry onto the market. While the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) spells out many of the requirements, the pathway for approval is complicated. Our panel of experts discuss the features of the BPCIA and how it operates for both approved biologics as well as biosimilar entrants. They also make some predictions on its impact for life science companies.
The webinar is 60 minutes, complete with Q&A.
Partners Catherine Holland and Jeff Van Hoosear authored "Using Pop Culture References in Advertisements? Just Do It Right" in the Orange County Business Journal. Access the PDF below to read the full article.
Excerpt: In this age of smartphone cameras and hashtags, an impromptu remark or a right- place-at-the-right-time snapshot can “go viral” and create instant and immense goodwill. Businesses today use social media as a tool to promote and exploit their brands, and to reach an audience that is simultaneously bigger and better targeted. They should be wary, however, when seeking to appropriate or capitalize on pop culture references, and understand that there can be unintended consequences. The following cases are cautionary reminders that a business needs to be vigilant when adopting promotions or trademarks that incorporate words, slogans or images from pop culture. Trademarks, copyrights, right of publicity and public relations issues all must be cleared before filing a trademark application or kicking off a new advertising campaign.
Reprinted with the permission of the Orange County Business Journal
Negotiating the maze of overlapping leave lawspaynefears
March 22, 2017, San Francisco – Calif.
Employment law presentation on overlapping leave laws. Our experienced employment lawyers reviewed major federal and California laws regarding employee leaves of absence and how they impact employers in 2017 and beyond.
This document summarizes several recent Federal Circuit cases involving issues of patent validity and infringement. The first case summary discusses the Federal Circuit affirming a district court decision upholding patent claims covering the drug Abilify as non-obvious and not invalid for double patenting. The second case discusses the Federal Circuit vacating and remanding a rejection of reissue claims for failure to properly apply the recapture rule. The third case discusses the Federal Circuit affirming a rejection of claims as inherently anticipated by a prior art clinical trial protocol.
The marcus evans 5th Product and Pipeline Enhancement for Generics Conference hosted industry leaders within the Generic Pharmaceutical, Branded Pharmaceutical and API industries operating globally. These leaders shared best practices, strategies and tools on portfolio management and business strategy, as well as legal, intellectual property and patent issues.
Knobbe Martens' attorneys presented on the following topic:
*Analyzing Recent Updates to the Hatch-Waxman Act to Grasp Future Impacts and Challenges
*Studying recent changes that could impact the industry, including 180-day exclusivity and complications regarding patent listings
*Drawing lessons from the close relationship between the patenting of generic products and FDA regulatory approval to pinpoint areas of improvement
*Considering the impact biosimilar products could have on market entry and patent strategies
*Reviewing both real-life rulings and hypotheticals regarding Hatch-Waxman litigation to identify future strategies
The document summarizes recent developments in patent law from Supreme Court cases and post-grant proceedings that impact medical device companies. Key points include:
1) The Supreme Court has made it more difficult to obtain and enforce patents by raising the bar for what constitutes patentable subject matter and claim clarity, and making it easier to recover attorney's fees.
2) Recent litigation and settlements between medical device companies highlight the ongoing battles over patents for pioneering heart valve technologies.
3) In the two years since being established, inter partes reviews have led to about 60% of challenged claims being found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The extraordinary two-year legal saga of Pintrips has ended in a California U.S. federal court.
In a bench trial, a judge sided with Pintrips, ruling that the travel-planning site can’t be blocked from using its like-sounding name.
The judge found that Pintrips invented its name by its own efforts. He was persuaded by the evidence that “pin” has been a term in generic use among the computer savvy prior to the existence of Pinterest.
Two years ago Pinterest, which claims to be the country’s third-most visited social network, alleged that Pintrips chose a name similar to its own and thus infringed on its trademark.
But despite the risk of significant legal costs and distraction, Pintrips defended itself until the end, represented by the law firm Kenyon & Kenyon.
This document summarizes a presentation on recent patent law updates and trends for medical device companies. It discusses Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, including what they are, filing trends, and changes under the new Director of the Patent Office. It also summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the eligibility of temperature measurement patents and trends of decreased district court litigation due to IPRs. Finally, it discusses the importance of intellectual property for medical device companies and strategies for building a strong patent portfolio.
At a recent in-house CLE event, Joseph Re, Partner at Knobbe Martens, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2016.
At a recent Forresters And Knobbe Martens Seminar, Charlotte Teall (Forresters) and Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens) presented "Latest Developments in European Patent Law: How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe."
The Trademark Review is a monthly newsletter prepared by Knobbe Martens attorneys covering relevant and current issues in trademark law.
In this Issue:
• Ron Paul’s Complaint to Regain RonPaul.org Constitutes Reverse Domain Hijacking
• MOTT’s for Baby Food Is Considered Primarily Merely a Surname
• Company Uses More than Is Reasonably Necessary to Advertise that its Test Strips Work with Another’s Meters
At a recent in-house CLE event, John Sganga, Partner and the firm's Litigation Practice Group Chair, presented an intellectual property year in review discussing important cases throughout 2015.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve in terms of intellectual property law, the Los Angeles Business Journal once again turned to some of the leading IP attorneys and experts in the region to get their assessments regarding the current state of IP legislation, the new rules of copyright protection, licensing and technology, and the various trends that they have been observing, and in some cases, driving. Below is a series of questions the Business Journal posed to these experts and the unique responses they provided – offering a glimpse into the state of intellectual property law in 2014 – from the perspectives of those in the trenches of our region today.
On March 30 and 31, 2017, Knobbe Martens attorneys presented written and oral educational material at an IP Seminar Series “Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Protection for Chinese Enterprises” sponsored by CHOFN, a Chinese IP law firm in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China.
Starting May 13, significant changes in the law of design patents come into effect. First, the U.S. and Japan both join the Hague Agreement for the Registration of Industrial Designs. Second, all U.S. design patents filed May 13 or later will have a 15-year term from issuance. This is an increase from the current 14-year term. Third, starting May 13, applicants are no longer required to file a petition and pay fees to include color drawings in U.S. design applications.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) creates a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation and allows companies to file lawsuits in federal court. It expands protection of valuable intellectual property like customer lists, source code, formulas and manufacturing methods. The new law does not replace state laws but provides an additional avenue for protection and enforcement of trade secrets. Employers should notify employees about whistleblower protections under the DTSA and implement security measures like non-disclosure agreements and access controls to protect valuable proprietary information.
This document discusses patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions in the US. It provides an overview of the two-part test used to determine patent eligibility, where the claimed invention must not be directed to an abstract idea and must recite an inventive concept or something significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples are given of claims that have passed this test, such as those directed to improving computer functionality or applying an abstract idea in a specific technological way. Strategies are suggested for drafting claims and applications to address patent eligibility requirements.
Knobbe Martens Partners Catherine Holland, Lynda Zadra-Symes, Jeff Van Hoosear and Jonathan Hyman give insight into the major trademark law issues across multiple jurisdictions, covering: ownership and scope of trademarks, application for registration, appeal of failed applications, third-party opposition to registration, duration and maintenance of marks, assignment, markings, types of trademark enforcement proceedings, procedural format and timing, discovery, litigation costs, defenses and remedies and appeals.
Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Trademarks 2016, (published in September 2015) For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.
Knobbe Martens’ patent attorneys Russell Jeide and Scott Cromar hosted a seminar series on intellectual property basics for Temecula’s business community. Entrepreneurs, investors, startups, inventors and anyone interested in learning how intellectual property and patents can help their business will benefit from this presentation.
In view of the U.S. approval process for biosimilars, companies are gearing up to either produce their own biosimilar products, or to defend against their entry onto the market. While the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) spells out many of the requirements, the pathway for approval is complicated. Our panel of experts discuss the features of the BPCIA and how it operates for both approved biologics as well as biosimilar entrants. They also make some predictions on its impact for life science companies.
The webinar is 60 minutes, complete with Q&A.
Partners Catherine Holland and Jeff Van Hoosear authored "Using Pop Culture References in Advertisements? Just Do It Right" in the Orange County Business Journal. Access the PDF below to read the full article.
Excerpt: In this age of smartphone cameras and hashtags, an impromptu remark or a right- place-at-the-right-time snapshot can “go viral” and create instant and immense goodwill. Businesses today use social media as a tool to promote and exploit their brands, and to reach an audience that is simultaneously bigger and better targeted. They should be wary, however, when seeking to appropriate or capitalize on pop culture references, and understand that there can be unintended consequences. The following cases are cautionary reminders that a business needs to be vigilant when adopting promotions or trademarks that incorporate words, slogans or images from pop culture. Trademarks, copyrights, right of publicity and public relations issues all must be cleared before filing a trademark application or kicking off a new advertising campaign.
Reprinted with the permission of the Orange County Business Journal
Negotiating the maze of overlapping leave lawspaynefears
March 22, 2017, San Francisco – Calif.
Employment law presentation on overlapping leave laws. Our experienced employment lawyers reviewed major federal and California laws regarding employee leaves of absence and how they impact employers in 2017 and beyond.
Global medical technology company based in Irvine wraps up another big patent fight by Tom Cowan, Associate and Gerard von Hoffmann, Partner, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Silicon Valley on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global practitioners.
The document discusses how gamers devote more of their free time to game worlds and how the real world feels like it's missing something. It then discusses questions from Quora on whether playing video games makes you smarter or a better person. The answers note that video games can improve skills like coordination, focus, alertness, and stress reduction. However, they can also make one oblivious to the real world and potentially addicted if played excessively. Some games offer moral dilemmas that could help with real-life decision making. A draft proposal suggests a game that helps users overcome real-life difficulties by experiencing them virtually.
This document discusses the history and future of using information and communication technologies (ICT) in English language teaching (ELT). It is divided into three parts:
Part 1 covers the early "computer-assisted language learning" (CALL) era from the mid-1980s to late 1990s, which Warschauer and Bax categorized into three stages based on the level of interaction between learners and technology.
Part 2 examines how the rise of Web 2.0, including tools like online discussion forums, webquests, and social networks, greatly expanded the role of ICT in ELT and allowed more creative approaches.
Part 3 suggests technologies that may be important for the future of ELT, such
The document provides 11 tips for engaging audiences on social media. Some of the key tips include asking audiences for their opinions through polls or competitions to comment on options. Another tip is to provide a sneak peek of new content to generate interest. The document also suggests using real people, memes, or humor to engage audiences on social media posts.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms for those who already suffer from conditions like anxiety and depression.
La culminación de la relación laboral pone fin a la relación de subordinación y obligaciones entre el empleador y el empleado. Puede ocurrir por mutuo acuerdo, por causas establecidas en la ley como la muerte, incapacidad o incumplimiento del contrato, o cuando el empleador no puede justificar un despido. Las consecuencias incluyen la pérdida de beneficios laborales y posibles indemnizaciones.
Este documento trata sobre la potestad tributaria del Estado. Define la potestad tributaria como la facultad del Estado para crear tributos con el fin de recaudar recursos para cubrir el gasto público. Explica que la potestad puede ser originaria, cuando emana de la constitución, o derivada, cuando se delega a entes locales mediante ley. También describe las limitaciones a la potestad tributaria como los principios de legalidad, capacidad contributiva, igualdad, generalidad y no confiscatoriedad. Finalmente, resume las clasificaciones, competencias y limitaciones de la
This document compares the mobile mirroring software Air Server and Reflector. It finds that while both allow wireless mirroring of devices, Air Server has broader compatibility with AirPlay, Chromecast, Miracast and various devices. It also has retina quality resolution and encrypted streaming. Reflector has some additional features like recording and media streaming but can be laggy. The document recommends Air Server due to its reliability, ease of use and lack of lagging in the author's experience.
This document discusses various factors that can improve learning results. It explains the neuroscience of the brain and how it processes and stores information. It describes different memory types including sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The document also discusses intelligence, multiple intelligences theory, and learning styles. Additionally, it provides learning strategies and emphasizes the importance of repetition, relevance, relationships, and reflection in learning.
Os principais problemas do sistema prisional brasileiro incluem superlotação, ociosidade e falta de assistência médica. Essas condições levam à prisionalização dos detentos e dificultam sua ressocialização. As consequências para a sociedade são o aumento da violência e da criminalidade. Algumas soluções propostas são a descriminalização, penas alternativas e a adoção de modelos prisionais menores com foco no trabalho e contato com a família.
Issuu y Scribd son plataformas digitales que permiten compartir documentos en línea. Issuu permite crear revistas y libros digitales y ver documentos de otros usuarios. Aunque es gratis y fácil de usar, tiene limitaciones como un idioma principal en inglés y tamaños máximos de archivo. Scribd permite subir y compartir varios formatos de archivo de manera gratuita, pero los documentos podrían perderse si la compañía cierra. Ambas son herramientas útiles para compartir información, pero tienen ciertas limitaciones.
Brazil is clearly in a recession that was engendered by a series of economic policy mistakes made by the neoliberal governments that followed from 1990 up to the present moment, and also by the passive attitude of the incompetent Michel Temer government that does not adopt any effective measure that is Capable of avoiding Brazil's journey towards economic depression.
Matrix Factorization Techniques For Recommender SystemsLei Guo
The document discusses matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. It begins by describing common recommender system strategies like content-based and collaborative filtering approaches. It then introduces matrix factorization methods, which characterize both users and items by vectors of latent factors inferred from rating patterns. The basic matrix factorization model approximates user ratings as the inner product of user and item vectors in the joint latent factor space. Learning algorithms like stochastic gradient descent and alternating least squares are used to compute the user and item vectors by minimizing a regularized error function on known ratings.
Bien sea que quieras vivir una maravillosa experiencia fuera de tu casa, en familia, o divertirte con los amigos o, celebrar un acontecimiento especial en pareja, nuestro Portafolio de Viajes Especiales Pasión por Descubrir 2014-2015, te servirá de fuente de inspiración para conocer destinos y lugares, como nuevas formas de viajar y de descubrir lugares que aún no conoces o, que existían solo en tu imaginación.
The document discusses streaming media and how it allows for real-time delivery of audio and video over the internet. Streaming avoids the need to download entire files before viewing or listening by allowing content to be played as it is delivered. However, steady and fast internet connection speeds are required to maintain uninterrupted playback of streamed content.
Knobbe Martens attorneys Jon Gurka and James Smith discuss recent district court rulings that have broadened the scope of IPR estoppel while they await the Supreme Court's decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal.
This document proposes a "Common Stock Theory" test for determining patent eligibility. It begins by discussing the U.S. court case In re Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten, which dealt with patent eligibility of a signal encoding technique. The document then lays out the foundations and principles of the proposed Common Stock Theory test, which is intended to provide a consistent methodology for determining patent eligibility grounded in fundamental patent law principles. The theory is based on Jeffersonian philosophy around encouraging innovation and the expanding scope of patent eligibility established in court cases like Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
The document summarizes highlights from the second year of post-issuance proceedings administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It discusses several notable cases from 2014 related to inter partes review, covered business method review, and post-grant review. Specifically, it discusses how the Federal Circuit addressed the appealability of PTAB decisions on petitions and clarified that only final written decisions can be appealed. It also summarizes trends in petitions filed and issues considered in the second year of these new proceedings introduced by the America Invents Act.
California Discovery Law: Why Requests for Production of Documents may not be...Scott A McMillan
The document discusses the requirements for document requests under California law. It states that each category of documents requested must be reasonably particularized to avoid overly broad or general requests. It provides examples from case law where courts found requests for all documents relating to a claim to be too broad. The document also analyzes differences between the statutes governing document requests versus interrogatories and admissions, finding that contention-style requests are not permitted for documents.
This document discusses the duty of candor and inequitable conduct in patent prosecution. It notes that inequitable conduct can arise from failure to disclose material information or submitting false information with intent to deceive the patent office. The standard for materiality is whether a reasonable examiner would consider the information important. Intent to deceive does not require subjective intent. Inequitable conduct can lead to patent invalidity or unenforceability. The document provides tips for prosecution such as memorializing all disclosures, assigning related applications to the same attorney, and giving clients instructions regarding candor duties.
The Impact of the PSLRA on Post-Discovery Amendment of PleadingsWendy Couture
This document summarizes the impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) on amending pleadings after discovery in securities fraud cases. It discusses how the PSLRA requires heightened pleading standards and stays discovery during motions to dismiss. After a claim survives dismissal, courts take different approaches to post-discovery amendment. Some invite amendment if discovery reveals new evidence, while others view amendment as circumventing the PSLRA's pleading requirements. The document analyzes relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law on this issue. It concludes by noting an upcoming Ninth Circuit case that could provide guidance on the interaction between the PSLRA and post-discovery amendment.
On November 30, 2010, Woodard, Emhardt attorney John Bradshaw was a featured speaker in a webinar entitled “Summary of Pitfalls and Strategies to Avoid Charges of Inequitable Conduct.” The webinar was part of the Practical Tips for Young Lawyers series sponsored by the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar Association. Mr. Bradshaw's presentation focused on the development of the doctrine of inequitable conduct and included a summary of specific circumstances where inequitable conduct has been found. Predictions on where the doctrine may be heading and current best practices for patent prosecutors was also discussed.
Sample collection of meet and confer letters for discovery in californiaLegalDocsPro
This letter identifies deficiencies in a party's responses to discovery requests and meets and confers regarding a motion to compel further responses and testimony at a deposition. Specifically, it notes boilerplate objections that do not comply with the code, objections to interrogatories that involve a single subject, and a party's blanket refusal to answer deposition questions or provide documents using a privilege claim. The letter provides citations and encourages resolving the issues without judicial intervention.
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Law Web
Judgment of US District court on motion for a Negative Inference Based upon Plaintiff’s Alleged Deletion of Emails - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/judgment-of-us-district-court-on-motion.html?#sthash.T5WQGg2Q.dpuf
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darren Chaker and Nicole Chaker in a civil RICO lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Scott McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm. The order summarizes the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which claims the defendants engaged in a pattern of extortion, harassment, and other unlawful acts as part of a RICO enterprise. The order analyzes the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), considering whether the plaintiffs have adequately alleged predicate acts of racketeering, cognizable damages, and other elements of RICO and state law claims.
This order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia addresses sanctions against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jared Wheat, Sean Smith, and Dr. Terrell Mark Wright for contempt of previous court orders. The court had previously found the defendants in contempt for making unsubstantiated advertising claims about weight loss products in violation of injunctions against deceptive marketing practices. At an evidentiary hearing, the court considered evidence to determine the appropriate nature and amount of sanctions. In this order, the court issues findings of fact regarding the defendants' roles and responsibilities at Hi-Tech, and reserves judgment to issue conclusions of law on the sanctions imposed.
Roark v. usa plaintiff's reply and responseBaddddBoyyyy
This document is Plaintiff Diane Roark's reply to the Defendant's response to her cross-motion for summary judgment in her case against the United States. She argues that the government had no legal right to conduct additional searches of her seized materials without new search warrants. She also argues that the government is improperly withholding some of her documents and has failed to account for all documents seized. Finally, she maintains that the NSA and her former employer have overreached in their claims of authority over her unclassified materials.
This document is the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case. It argues that the Plaintiff's motion should be denied for the following reasons: 1) the records sought were compiled for a law enforcement purpose by the FBI; 2) Exemption 7(A) applies because disclosure of the records could reasonably interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation by another agency; 3) affidavits submitted by the FBI are presumed to be made in good faith and the FBI's invocation of exemptions is entitled to deference. The response provides undisputed facts and arguments supporting the application of Exemption 7(A) to withhold the requested records.
The court denied the State's motion to dismiss, finding that: 1) Constitutional challenges to ballot access laws require a fact-intensive analysis, not an automatic ruling; 2) While a 1985 case found Indiana's 2% requirement valid, the current challenge considers multiple requirements together rather than in isolation; and 3) Dismissing part of the claim regarding the 2% rule alone would be improper, as it is intertwined with the broader challenge to the scheme as a whole.
The document discusses several recent patent law cases:
1. The Supreme Court may review whether clear and convincing evidence is the proper standard of proof for patent invalidity challenges, as some judges argue factual findings in claim construction should be given deference.
2. Design patent cases were impacted by rulings on separating functional from ornamental elements and applying the ordinary observer test.
3. The written description requirement and what is needed to show possession of generic invention claims was addressed in an en banc Federal Circuit decision.
4. Inducement of infringement and liability for method patent violations under section 271(f) were also topics of recent case law developments.
This document is a court opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Andrea Kidder seeking to quash a discovery order requiring her to disclose the results of a blood alcohol test. The court denied the petition, finding that under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii), Kidder was required to disclose the results of the scientific blood alcohol test to the prosecution as part of the reciprocal discovery process after electing to participate in discovery. The court rejected Kidder's argument that the test results were protected work product, determining that the rule requires disclosure of scientific test results regardless of whether the expert conducting the test will be called as a witness.
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseSteven McGee
patent application 13/573,002 Supreme Court Alice Corp V CLS Bank compliant application "claims may not direct towards abstract ideas" implies requirement for physical meme. Little League Baseball Tournament physical meme first (and best) physical meme embodiment compliant with SC Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank see http://sawconcepts.com/index/id46.html
Similar to District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel (20)
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
This document discusses strategic considerations for intellectual property risk mitigation and responding to patent infringement threats and assertions. It provides an overview of types of patent infringement, including literal infringement which occurs when each element of a patented claim is identical in an allegedly infringing device or process. It also discusses doctrine of equivalents, contributory infringement, and induced infringement. The document outlines appropriate and limited defenses to patent infringement and notes statutes related to willfulness and enhanced damages. Factors courts consider for determining willfulness are also provided.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Lozan gave an informative presentation on design patent law in the United States. The partners provided best practices for filing and prosecuting design patents in the U.S. and techniques and strategies for including multiple design embodiments in design patent applications. They also discussed how to identify and protect visual elements in computer-related technologies and how to integrate design patents into a holistic intellectual property strategy.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Lozan
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellman continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic, diving into the best intellectual property portfolios and cost deferrable strategies to maximize intellectual property spend.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellmann
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Teplitskiy gave an informative presentation on strategic considerations for claim drafting electrical and telecommunications Inventions. The partners provided illustrative claim drafting examples and best practices for defining claim scope, as well as claim drafting strategies for avoiding or minimizing unintentional functional claiming.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Teplitskiy
Partners Maria Stout and Paul Stellman kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Maria Stout and Paul Stellmann
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of managing employment and vendor agreements, follow-on agreements, and sample language and practical examples.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
The webinar covered strategic considerations for key terms in employee and vendor agreements regarding intellectual property and restrictive covenants. It discussed defining the scope of work and assignments of ownership for intellectual property created. Restrictive covenants like non-compete clauses, non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and confidentiality were also covered. The presentation addressed terms regarding the duration of the agreements and obligations after termination.
This document discusses advanced claiming strategies for artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions. It provides an overview of machine learning and the minimal requirements for an algorithm to be considered machine learning. It also discusses best practices for drafting patent claims for machine learning inventions, including providing detailed descriptions of the technical underpinnings of the AI technology and step-by-step algorithms. The document gives examples of potential patentable subject matter for machine learning inventions, such as collecting or forming a data set, modifications to algorithms, and using machine learning processed data. It provides sample patent claims related to training a neural network, predicting device failures using state and configuration data, and characterizing user inputs using machine learning.
More from Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law (20)
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel
1. Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th
Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
District Courts And PTAB Are Divided On IPR Estoppel
Law360, New York (March 8, 2017, 10:51 AM EST) --
Since the America Invents Act created inter partes review, practitioners have sought
guidance regarding the scope of estoppel to be applied to prior art that “reasonably
could have been raised during” an IPR. Currently, district courts and the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board are divided on the application of IPR estoppel.
The statute governing IPR estoppel prevents a petitioner or real party in interest from
asserting invalidity in a subsequent proceeding “on any ground that the petitioner
raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. §
315(e) (2011). Section 315(e)(1) prevents a challenge to patent validity in a subsequent
proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Section 315(e)(2) prevents
such a challenge in a subsequent civil action or U.S. International Trade
Commission proceeding.
The legislative history of the statute shows Congress intended a broad application of
estoppel. See, e.g., 157 Cong. Rec. S1375, 1358 (Daily Ed. March 8, 2011) (Statement of
Senator Grassley) (indicating that inter partes review “will completely substitute for at
least the patents-and-printed publications portion of the civil litigation”).
Federal Circuit Guidance: Shaw
In Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems, 817 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
2016), the Federal Circuit held that estoppel does not apply to grounds denied by the
PTAB in an IPR because the “IPR does not begin until it is instituted.” District courts
post-Shaw have thus held that grounds asserted, but denied, in an IPR can be raised in subsequent
litigation. See e.g., Illumina Inc. v. Qiagen NV, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122571 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9,
2016); Karl Storz Endoscopy-America Inc. v. Stryker, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63649 at *28 (N.D. Cal. May 12,
2016).
In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., Toshiba challenged the validity of IV’s patent in district
court, claiming IV’s patent was obvious in light of two patents that Toshiba had not asserted in its
previous IPR petition. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174699, at
*38 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2016). Id. The court observed that interpreting Shaw to allow Toshiba to assert
“references that were never presented to the PTAB at all (despite their public nature) confounds the
very purpose of” the IPR. Id. But the court could not “divine a reasoned way around the Federal Circuit’s
interpretation in Shaw.” Id. Thus, the court refused to apply estoppel.
Jon W. Gurka
James Smith
2. Recently, in Verinata Health Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., the Northern District of California reviewed
the scope of estoppel under Section 315(e)(2). 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7728 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017). Ariosa
filed two IPR petitions challenging Verinata’s patent on “three grounds of invalidity: (1) obviousness over
the combined teachings of Dhallan and Binladen; (2) obviousness over the combined teachings of Quake
and Craig; and (3) obviousness over the combined teachings of Shoemaker, Dhallan, and Binladen.” Id.
at *10-11. The PTAB instituted review on the third ground only, rejecting the two other grounds as
redundant. Id.
In the district court, Verinata moved to strike invalidity contentions that “defendants ‘raised or
reasonably could have raised’ during the IPR proceedings concerning the patents-in-suit” under 35
U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Id. Quoting Toshiba and Shaw, the court narrowly interpreted Section 315(e) to apply
only to instituted grounds. The court commented, “limiting IPR estoppel to grounds actually instituted
ensures that estoppel applies only to those arguments, or potential arguments, that received (or
reasonably could have received) proper judicial attention.” Id. at 10. This reasoning highlights one
possible reason that courts apply a narrow estoppel under Section 315(e): a reluctance to estop parties
from asserting invalidity arguments that never received PTAB attention. A narrow interpretation places
courts in familiar territory: estopping arguments that have received proper PTAB attention in a final
decision subject to judicial review.
PTAB Estoppel Is Much Broader
The board applies estoppel in a much broader fashion than the district courts. In Apotex v. Wyeth, the
board denied an obviousness ground because the prior art had been cited, though not put forth as prior
art, in an earlier petition. IPR2015-00873, Paper 8, 2015 WL 5523393 at *2-3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2015).
The board held that the obviousness ground was “a ground that petitioner could have raised” and thus
the petitioner was estopped from doing so under Section 315(e)(1). Id at *3.
The board has also held that petitioners are estopped from arguing new theories of invalidity involving
prior art previously relied upon in an IPR. In Dell Inc. et al. v. Electronics and Telecommunications
Research Institute, the petitioner sought to rely upon two prior art references from a previous IPR,
Mylex and Hathorn, in a new obviousness combination in a subsequent IPR. IPR2015-00549, Paper 10,
2015 WL 1731182 at *2-3 (P.T.A.B. March 26, 2015). Although the petitioner had used both references
in the previous IPR, they served different purposes: Hathorn was relied upon as an anticipatory
reference and Mylex was “asserted as one of a combination of references in three other obviousness
grounds.” Id at *3. In the subsequent IPR, petitioner sought to combine Mylex and Hathorn as a new
obviousness ground. Id. The board held that the new obviousness ground could have been raised in the
previous petition and that the petitioner was estopped under Section 315(e)(1). Id.
In a fairly straightforward application of Section 315(e)(1), the board in Ford Motor Co. v. Paice
estopped the petitioner from relying on three references it could have raised in its two prior petitions.
IPR2014-00884, Paper 38 2015 WL 8536739, at *6-7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015). The prosecution history
cited these references, and the petitioner had included them in a related petition filed the same day as
the two other IPR petitions. Id at *7. From this evidence, the board concluded that the petitioner “knew
or should have known” of the references, and thus should be estopped from asserting the prior art in
the IPR petition. Id.; see also Praxair Distrib., Inc., v. INO Therapeutics LLC, IPR2016-00781, Paper 10,
2016 WL 5105519 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016) (continuing to apply estoppel broadly after Shaw).
3. Recent Attempts to Limit the Impact of Shaw
On Jan. 27, 2017, in Verinata Health Inc. et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. et al., Illumina filed petition for a
writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit seeking an order directing the district court to enforce the
statutory estoppel of Section 315(e)(2) against Ariosa. See In re: Illumina Inc. and Verinata Health Inc.,
Case No. 17-109 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2017). Illumina’s petition asks the Federal Circuit to decide whether
prior art grounds the petitioner reasonably could have asserted in an IPR petition, but never did, result
in estoppel. Another pharmaceutical company, Depomed, and two biotechnology trade associations,
Biotechnology Innovation Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Illumina’s petition.[1] Ariosa admits that estoppel may apply to
grounds that were not raised but reasonably could have been raised, but argues that Illumina’s petition
is moot because the district court, in accordance with Shaw, denied estoppel on a ground that the board
denied as redundant. Id. Brief of Respondent at 19.
If the Federal Circuit confirms that estoppel applies to publicly available documents that a petitioner
could have, but did not raise in a petition, the Federal Circuit will need to define the boundaries of
“reasonably could have raised” as used in Section 315(e). The Federal Circuit will need to formulate a
test for deciding “reasonableness,” considering the scope of a reasonable search and the identity of a
reasonable searcher. For example, if a printed publication exists solely in a remote library, could the
document reasonably have been discovered? How much searching must be performed to be
reasonable? What persons have the proper qualifications to conduct a reasonable prior art search?
The Scope of "Reasonably Could Have Been Raised"
In Clearlamp v. LKQ Corp., the Northern District of Illinois explored the scope of “reasonably could have
been raised” under Section 315(e)(2) in an opinion issued just five days before Shaw. 2016 WL 4734389
(N.D. Ill. March 18, 2016). The court framed the issue as whether or not the datasheet “could not have
been found by a skilled searcher performing a diligence search.” Id. at *9. The court relied on Senator
Kyl’s statement in the AIA legislative history to conclude that “[a]dding the modifier reasonably ...
ensures could-have-raised extends only to prior art.” Id. at *7-8. According to the court, “[o]ne way to
show what a skilled search would have found would be (1) to identify the search string and search
source that would identify the allegedly unavailable prior art and (2) present evidence, likely expert
testimony, why such a criterion would be part of a skilled searcher’s diligent search.” Id. at *9.
The PTAB interprets “reasonably could have raised” similarly to that of the Clearlamp court. In Praxair
Distribution Inc. v. INO Therapeutics LLC, a decision issued after Shaw, the petitioner challenged the
validity of a patent based on two textbook references, Greenough and Jaypee. IPR2016-00781, Paper 10,
2016 WL 5105519 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016). The petitioner had previously filed two other IPR petitions
challenging the validity of the same patent on different, but similar, grounds. Id. The board examined
legislative history and held that “reasonably could have been raised” should apply to “prior art which a
skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discovery.” Id.
The board then required the petitioner to demonstrate why it could not have raised the Greenough and
Jaypee references earlier. To show diligence in searching for the prior art, the petitioner submitted an
“Exemplary List of Search Results from Cardinal Intellectual Property” that included neither reference.
Id. The board noted, however, that the petitioner did not “‘identify the actual searcher, his or her skill
level and experience in the field, [] why he or she searched using keywords and keyword combinations,’
or explain whether [the references] were encompassed by the initial search results but not selected for
4. the exemplary list.” Id. (citing the patent owner preliminary response).
Further, the petitioner’s own expert testified that Greenough was “a thought leader” in the industry and
that a person of skill in the art would have sought out the works of Greenough and Jaypee. Id. The
authors of the textbook references were also well known in the relevant field and the petitioner
admitted that other articles authored by Greenough were cited during prosecution of the challenged
patent. Lastly, the board noted that the Greenough reference is catalogued and accessible at dozens of
public libraries and that both references are readily identified by searching Google Books using
keywords from the challenged patent specification. Id.
Recently in Great West Casualty Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, the board refused to apply Shaw to
limit estoppel. IPR2016-01534, Paper No. 13 at 11. The petitioner, in its fifth IPR petition against the
particular IV patent, sought to raise a new prior art reference. Id. The petitioner relied on Shaw and
Toshiba to argue that estoppel only applies to grounds “actually litigated in an inter partes review after
the institution decision.” Id. The board rejected this interpretation noting, “Congress would not have
included the additional words ‘or reasonably could have raised’ after ‘raised’ if Congress had desired to
limit the estoppel to grounds actually raised.” Id. at 12. The board rejected the reasoning in Toshiba and
interpreted Shaw to mean “estoppel does not apply to any ground of unpatentability that was
presented in a petition, but denied institution.” Id. at 13-14. Thus, estoppel applied to invalidity grounds
that could have been raised in a prior IPR petition.
The petitioner argued it could not have raised the reference earlier because (1) it was unaware of the
reference prior to filing the petition and (2) there was no evidence the reference could be found by a
diligent prior art searcher. Id. at 14-15. The board rejected the petitioner’s reasoning because it “did not
present search parameters such that [the board] could evaluate the ‘reasonableness’ of its search.” The
board also noted that the reference was indexed at the Library of Congress, and the reference was
related to another reference the petitioner had previously cited in an earlier IPR petition. Once again,
the board placed the burden on the petitioner to show it conducted a reasonable search.
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit should provide guidance to district courts going forward: Either follow the existing
reasoning from Shaw to narrowly apply prior-art estoppel under Section 315(e), or extend Shaw to more
broadly apply prior-art estoppel consistent with the legislative intent of Section 315(e). Currently,
however, one thing is certain — district courts are interpreting Shaw to apply Section 315(e)(2) one way,
while the board interprets nearly identical language in Section 315(e)(1) a different way. As more
patents survive IPRs, the application of estoppel for invalidity arguments in district court and the PTO
will become increasingly important.
Should the Federal Circuit adopt a broader estoppel that better aligns with legislative intent, that
estoppel will likely protect patent owners from facing most never-before-seen prior art references
during subsequent district court litigation and PTO proceedings. Although defendants may rely on new
prior art references that could not have been reasonably discovered, a broader estoppel should prevent
most strategic nonassertion of prior art during the IPR phase. Presently under Shaw, however,
defendants may still get multiple opportunities to invalidate patents using prior art references they
could have asserted in an IPR petition.
—By Jon W. Gurka and James Smith, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP