January 9, 2017
Authored and Edited by Ashley M. Winkler; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Microsoft Corporation v. Biscotti, Inc., Nos. 2016-2080, 2016-2082, 2016-2083 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding Microsoft failed to prove the challenged claims were unpatentable.
Before the PTAB, three IPR proceedings considered the patentability of the same patent, each based on whether a prior-art patent anticipated and/or rendered obvious the challenged claims. In its Final Written Decisions, the Board found Microsoft could not establish anticipation of the challenged claims because it combined different embodiments and cobbled together disparate disclosures without tying them together. The Board concluded Microsoft likewise failed to show that certain challenged claims would have been obvious.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed the Board applied the correct standard for anticipation. It reaffirmed that, (1) in order to anticipate, a reference must disclose all elements arranged as in the claims, and that (2) a reference that does not expressly spell out every claim limitation may nevertheless anticipate if a skilled artisan reading the reference would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement. It also reaffirmed that “anticipation is not proven by ‘multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” The Court then determined the Board’s factual findings regarding the asserted prior art were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the Board’s conclusions that the challenged claims were not proven unpatentable.
Judge Newman dissented. She believed the asserted reference anticipated the claims because it showed “the same components, having the same function, combined in the same way for the same purpose.”
Copyright © 2018 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.