Instead the Board stated in a footnote that they would “address only those grounds of unpatentability asserted under §§ 102 and 103.” IPR2013-00252, No.
In contrast, , the Board refused to acknowledge petitioner’s argument that a claim lacked antecedent basis.
reminds us of the centrality of expert testimony in guiding a trial judge’s rulings and demonstrates that patentees can still win preliminary injunctions, notwithstanding recent trends to the contrary.
The court’s enigmatic guidance is the subject of ongoing interpretation in the lower courts, not least in the Federal Circuit, which hears all appeals from patent cases.
He said that Cellz Direct had been held to an improperly high standard of proof as to invalidity—namely,clear and convincing evidence– which in turn “perpetuates these errors and reinvigorates the pre-standard for obviousness, rigidly requiring an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test.
According to the dissent, “all of the claimed elements were present in the prior art.” That is, the prior art taught a single-round freezing process, and the patent claim added no more than repeating this step and measuring cell viability a second time.
For example, the Board that “it is permissible [for petitioner] to argue.
However, the Board has considered§ 112 grounds in deciding motions to amend. that Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims are unpatentable under 35 U.
The Board noted the deficiency and stated that Patent Owner “should provide sufficient explanation or evidence as to how dependent claims .