Patent office regulations provide a mechanism for filing an affidavit or declaration to establish that a disclosure is not prior art. When the patent office rejects a patent application over an inventor’s or joint inventors’ own publication
Patent owners in IPR proceedings should be mindful that filing a response may subject the patent owner to an affirmative burden and obligate them to follow applicable PTO rules and regulations lest it fails to carry that burden.
When arguing secondary considerations in support of nonobviousness, it may be best to provide evidence of one or more secondary indicia of nonobviousness based on a combination of claimed features, since evidence predicated on a single claimed feature may be easier to rebut
<p>🕑<i> 3 minutes </i></p><p>The term "teach away" refers to a concept in which the relevant prior art provides a teaching or suggestion which explicitly states or substantially implies that a claimed invention is excluded based on the technical contents disclosed by the citation. The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court recently provided guidance on the determination of whether the substantial contents of the relevant prior art teach away from a claimed invention in a decision concerning a heat sink invention.</p>
In ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., No. 2022-1092 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ADASA under 35 U.S.C. § 101.