“The PTAB dismissed Longhorn’s claims. [prior art was] Because it was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101, there was no precedent for requiring a prior art patent reference itself to be patent-eligible to maintain a validity challenge. ”
On April 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued three Rule 36 decisions summarizing and upholding a series of final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The affirmation of the Rule 36 summary in the Federal Circuit has been a growing problem in the realm of US patent law for most of the past decade. Without the benefit of the Court of Appeals’ reasonable analysis of the arguments put forward on appeal, IP attorneys and experts would not have been able to determine with certainty whether the PTAB’s interpretation of the obviousness doctrine was appropriate. You will get an answer from the judgment of
One World Technologies, Inc. v. Chevron (HK) Ltd.
Federal Circuit Rule 36 Opinion One World Technologies v. Chevron (HK) left a series of four final written decisions from between the parties In an examination (IPR) procedure conducted before the PTAB, it was determined that One World’s gardening tool patent claims were not invalid for obviousness. Chevron’s four IPR petitions initiated by the PTAB were awarded three One World patents (U.S. Patent No. 9596806, A control system that controls the movement of garden tools; U.S. Patent No. 10070588; gardening toolsand U.S. Patent No. 9826686, the same name as the ‘588 patent. Each of these patents protects a garden tool or lawn mower with an operating assembly associated with the handle and controlled by a control system in a manner that improves user safety.
Each of Chevron’s four IPR petitions alleges a lawn mower safety publication from 1999 called “Outlis,” and the PTAB states that if a mower’s handlebar is tilted upward was directed to a safety device that prevented access to the rotating blades of the lawn mower. Chevron alleged that Outlis disclosed a control system, claimed in One World’s patent claims, in which the motor and cutting blade are stopped until the handle returns to its original position. However, the PTAB found that the particular embodiment of his Outlis claimed by Chevron did not include hold-to-run control components, including the power contactor that controls the operation of the mower. The PTAB discounted the expert testimony provided by Chevron during the IPR proceedings as a conclusion to Chevron’s claims in his IPR petition.
PTAB also has a British patent (“Reichert”) claiming a steering wheel that can be adjusted to the stride of a mower driver, and an electric implement with a switching element that applies an electronic brake (“Nakano”). Chevron argued to his PTAB that a person skilled in the art would have combined the enhanced detection system disclosed by Nakano with the Reichert lawnmower. The PTAB found that Reichert’s increased safety was related to the extension and retraction of the mower’s handle and not to the rotation of the blade in his path. Therefore, there was no rational basis for applying Nakano’s switching element to Reichert’s telescopic handle in order to meet One’s claimed control system limitations. world patents.
The final written decision in the Chevron IPR also dismissed the constitutionality argument raised by One World, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. USA vs Earthrex (2021). The PTAB further added that a motion by Chevron to amend a mandatory notice adding Techtronic Industries and Homelite Consumer Products as bona fide stakeholders in the IPR, and his Chevron redacted confidential information from testimony presented by the Chevron declarer. I approved the motion to seal by. During IPR.
Longhorn HD v. Unitary Patent
Federal Circuit Rule 36 Summary Affirmation Longhorn HD LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC Upholding the PTAB’s determination that the unitary patent clearly established several claims of Longhorn’s U.S. Patent No. 7,260,846, Intrusion detection systemIndependent claim 7 of the ‘846 patent covers an intrusion detection method for extracting packets from network traffic, constructing vectors from packet components, and analyzing those vectors to identify anomalous behavior and network attacks. doing. Unified Patents did not identify any other actual parties involved in the IPR proceedings filed against Longhorn’s ‘846 patent.
Many of the PTAB’s final written decisions in unitary patent IPR proceedings focus on the alleged prior art references of US Patent No. 93006966 (“Portnoy”). Longhorn ‘846 patent. Portnoy’s patent claims disclose a method of unsupervised anomaly detection that can be performed on unlabeled data and does not require a purely regular training set to perform the analysis.
Longhorn, the patent owner, argued that the provisional application from which Portnoy claimed priority did not meet the requirements of 35 USC § 119(e)(1) as established by the U.S. Federal Circuit. objected to the priority date of Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics (2015). Under that precedent, the specification of a provisional application “must contain a written description of the invention . .
The PTAB found that Portnoy’s provisional application adequately disclosed the claimed computer system of Longhorn’s intrusion detection method and supported Portnoy’s own portions used in the unitary patent’s obviousness challenge. bottom. The PTAB rejected Longhorn’s contention that the Portnoy provisional proposal was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101. This is because there was no precedent for requiring that a prior art patent reference itself be patent-eligible to challenge validity.
Unilock 2017 vs Google
The final Rule 36 decision issued by the Federal Circuit on Monday Uniloc 2017 LLC vs. Google LLCwhich confirmed the final written decision by the PTAB invalidating several claims of Uniloc’s US Patent No. 6,366,908. Key-fact-based text retrieval system, key-fact-based text indexing method, and retrieval methodKey facts, as claimed in the ‘908 patent, consist of “material facts contained in the sentences that make up the document.” This patent claims a text retrieval system based on key facts. It overcomes the limitations of previous keyword-based text retrieval systems that require precise text queries and do not incorporate keyword meaning into text retrieval operations.
Google sued Uniloc’s ‘908 patent in a challenge to obviousness based on a combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,933,822 (“Braden-Harder”) and a 1998 publication disclosing an inverted index in an information retrieval system. successfully invalidated claims 6 through 12 of Search for a word in the document collection (“Grossman”). Unified Patents alleged that Braden-Harder disclosed an information retrieval method that utilizes natural language processing to generate “word-relation-word” boolean triples. The PTAB agreed that these triples “express semantic relationships between significant words in an input string or phrase” that are key facts claimed in the ‘908 patent. The PTAB further found that it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the Braden-Harder logical form tripe to generate other logical forms such as the claimed key facts.
Uniloc argued that the combination of Braden-Harder and Grossman did not satisfy the “key-fact extraction step” of claim 6 of the ‘908 patent, but the PTAB argued that Uniloc did not believe that Braden-Harder’s information retrieval method met the restriction. It pointed out that it could not refute Google’s claim that Preamble to claim 6 of the ‘908 patent. Moreover, although the key facts of the ‘908 patent are claimed in pairs and not Braden-Harder triples, the PTAB has found that the specification shows that the key facts of the ‘908 patent were limited to, at most, two elements. Or I didn’t find anything in my filing history.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 103763568
Copyright: bigfatnapoleon
