April 17, 2019
Authored and Edited by Chun Xu; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In ATI Technologies ULC v. Iancu, Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision that certain claims of ATI Technologies’ patent were unpatentable, holding that the Board erred in finding that ATI failed to antedate primary references used in anticipation and obviousness challenges.
ATI established conception of its invention before the date of the primary references, but the Board found that the inventor redesigned the invention to include unclaimed features and that the inventor failed to “provide a reasonable way” for the Board to determine “whether unexplained lapses have not occurred.” The Board accordingly held that the invention had not been diligently reduced to practice and thus ATI failed to antedate the primary references.
The Federal Circuit reversed, finding the Board applied “the wrong standard for diligence.” The Court, citing its 2003 decision in In re Jolley (308 F.3d 1317, Fed Cir. 2002), held that “[d]iligence is not negated if the inventor works on improvements and evaluates alternatives while developing an invention.” The Court further found the Board’s “unexplained lapses” conclusion was not supported by the record, because no question of “unexplained lapses” was raised at the hearing and no additional information concerning corroboration was requested. The Court thus held ATI successfully antedated the primary references and reversed the Board’s unpatentability determinations.
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Prosecution First Blog
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
IP Updates
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
SCOTUS: Justices Reject Three-Year Limit on Damages for Copyright Infringement
May 10, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.