Obviousness Standard: Leveraging Latest PTO and Court Guidance

Overcoming Challenges of Obviousness and Attacks on Patent Validity

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Thursday, June 1, 2017
Recorded event now available


This CLE webinar will provide patent counsel with guidance on the evolving obviousness standard. In a post-AIA, post-KSR v. Teleflex world in which obviousness is at times confused with patent eligibility under Section 101, how is the Federal Circuit’s treatment of obviousness issues changing? How does the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handle obviousness in the increasingly popular inter partes review (IPR) proceedings? Even though the burden to prove invalidity remains with the accused infringer, is the standard for patentees to prevail on non-obviousness under Section 103 more confusing than ever? Our panel with answer these and other important questions.

Description

The impact of Federal Circuit decisions has been significant. Federal Circuit review of PTAB decisions in appeals of final rejections and ex parte and inter partes reexaminations has highlighted the importance of deference to PTO expertise in Kennametal Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co. and In re Urbanski, and the difficulties in arguing that references are not physically combinable as in Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments.

The Federal Circuit’s treatment of district court decisions will also be explored. The court’s analysis of unexpected results in Senju Pharm. v. Lupin Ltd. and Prometheus Labs v. Roxane Labs have added contours to the obviousness calculus. The impact of KSR in the electromechanical arts continues to be felt in decisions such as ABT Systems v. Emerson.

A rash of recent decisions (e.g., Icon Health and Fitness v. Strava and In re Van Os) citing the need for the USPTO to supply reasoned explanations and evidentiary support for obviousness conclusions will be explored. Decisions that inform practitioners about how the Federal Circuit views teaching away, motivation to combine references, and other facets of obviousness analysis will also be discussed.

Decisions are rapidly emerging from the PTAB from IPR proceedings, and many of these decisions are being ratified without opinion by the Federal Circuit, effectively giving the PTAB the final word. We will explore how the PTAB is analyzing obviousness issues when deciding whether to institute trial and then after trial has been instituted. Our discussion will include the role of secondary considerations of non-obviousness (and the nexus requirement), whether “teaching away” arguments can be successful, the importance of “motivation to combine,” and obviousness challenges to design patents. In addition to providing insight on PTAB final decisions to give practical guidance to both patentees and petitioners, we will review recent IPR decisions that have reached the Federal Circuit, including, for instance, Arendi v. Apple, In re NuVasive, and Personal Web Technologies v. Apple.

Practitioners need to understand how the PTAB, district courts and the Federal Circuit apply the obviousness standard in order to successfully manage their patent portfolios and overall IP strategy.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the obviousness standard and the many recent changes that impact it, outlines steps that companies and counsel should take to withstand obviousness rejections, and offers best practices for prosecuting and defending against obviousness attacks in litigation.

Outline

  1. Background for the obviousness standard
  2. Federal Circuit treatment of PTAB decisions in appeals of final rejections and ex parte and inter partes reexaminations
  3. Federal Circuit treatment of district court decisions
  4. IPR decisions and results on Federal Circuit review
  5. Interplay with Section 101
  6. Practice tips

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • How have recent Federal Circuit decisions affected application of the obviousness standard?
  • What level of “unexpected results” is needed to demonstrate patentability in light of recent decisions?
  • How can practitioners leverage recent decisions in which the Federal Circuit has insisted upon more thorough, reasoned explanations of the PTO’s obviousness conclusions?
  • What are the most effective strategies for both patentees and petitioners in prevailing on obviousness assertions in an IPR proceeding, and how will that strategy play out at the Federal Circuit?

Faculty

Barry J. Herman, Partner
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Baltimore

Mr. Herman litigates matters across a wide array of technologies in the chemical, mechanical and electrical arts. He represents both domestic and foreign clients in patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes before the U.S. Federal District Courts, the International Trade Commission, and the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Herman also has significant appellate experience at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Jon L. Schuchardt, Ph.D., Partner
Dilworth IP, Trumbull, Conn.

Mr. Schuchardt is a client-focused IP professional, fluent in organic chemistry, catalysis, and polymer chemistry, with 22 years of experience in IP law. He is an expert in devising patent strategies, growing patent portfolios, counseling business leaders, drafting applications, and improving IP processes. He has prepared, filed and prosecuted more than 270 patent applications. Mr. Schuchardt is also an inventor on 15 issued U.S. patents.


Recordings

CLE On-Demand - Streaming Video

Includes recorded streaming video of full program plus PDF handouts.

On-demand is the only recorded format recognized for CLE credits in DE, IN, KS, LA, MS, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, WI.

AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN*, KS, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH**, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH*, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY (Note: Some states restrict CLE eligibility based on the age of a program. Refer to our state CLE Map for additional information.)

*Only available for attorneys admitted for more than two years. For OH CLE credits, only programs recorded within the current calendar year are eligible - contact the CLE department for verification.

**NH attendees must self-determine if a program is eligible for credit and self-report their attendance.

CLE On-Demand Video $297.00

How does this work?


Recorded Event

Includes full event recording plus handouts.

Strafford is an approved provider and self-study CLE credit is available in most states.

AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, KY, ME, MN, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WY (Note: Some states restrict CLE eligibility based on the age of a program. Refer to our state CLE Map for additional information.)

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording.

Additional copies of a recording can be purchased at a discount. Please call Strafford Customer Service toll-free at 1-800-926-7926 ext 10 or email customerservice@straffordpub.com to place your order.

Recorded Webinar Download $297.00

How does this work?

Recorded Audio Download (MP3) $297.00

How does this work?

DVD (Slide Presentation with Audio) $297.00 plus $9.45 S&H

How does this work?


Webinar

Strafford webinars offer several options for participation: online viewing of speaker-controlled PowerPoint presentations with audio via computer speakers or via phone; or audio only via telephone (download speaker handouts prior to the program).  Please note that our webinars do not feature videos of the presenters.

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

or call 1-800-926-7926

CLE Credits

Many states grant CLE credits for on-demand streaming audio programs and recorded events. Our programs are pre-approved in many states. Refer to our state CLE map for state-specific information.

or call 1-800-926-7926

Customer Reviews

The program provided great information and great background on the case law that will be useful in responding to obviousness rejections.

Heather Gerard

Promega

The slides had citations to many key court decisions and USPTO materials that will be directly relevant to my practice.

Verne A. Luckow

Polster Lieder Woodruff & Lucchesi

Strafford provided an enthusiastic presentation that focused on patent practice, not theory.

David H. Vance

Vance Intellectual Property

I liked the practical insights, particularly when tied to cases the presenters had worked on.

Michael Gray

Kohler

I felt the program topic was well presented within the short time limit.

Kathy Pilkington

McGuireWoods

or call 1-800-926-7926

Patent Law Advisory Board

Charles S. Baker

Partner

Locke Lord

David S. Bloch

Partner

Winston & Strawn

Irah H. Donner

Partner

Manatt

Ian N. Feinberg

Partner

Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson

Anthony J. Fitzpatrick

Partner

Duane Morris

David Segal

Senior IP Counsel

Intel

Astrid R. Spain

Partner

Jones Day

Mark P. Wine

Partner

Orrick

or call 1-800-926-7926

Our Guarantee

Strafford webinars are backed by our 100% Unconditional Money-Back Guarantee: if you are not satisfied with any of our products, simply let us know and get a full refund. For more information regarding complaints and refunds, please contact us at 1-800-926-7926 ext 10. Complaints regarding this program can be submitted via the course evaluation found in the “Thank you” e-mail at the end of the course.