April 25, 2018
Authored and Edited by Ruohan Li; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, No. 2016-2504, 2016-2602 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that the challenged patent was obvious, holding that incorporation by reference is insufficient to satisfy a patentee’s burden of providing notice of the asserted priority date under 35 U.S. § 120.
E*TRADE and other financial entities filed an IPR challenging Droplets’ ’115 Patent. The PTAB found all claims of the ’115 Patent invalid as obvious over a PCT application. Droplets argued that the ’115 patent claimed priority to through an incorporation by reference. The ’115 patent included a specific reference to two priority applications and incorporated the disclosure of each by reference. It did not specifically enumerate the PCT application, although it was included within the disclosure of one of the priority applications. The PTAB found this an insufficient priority claim, and invalidated the challenged claims based on the PCT application.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that 35 U.S.C. § 120 requires “a specific reference to [an] earlier filed application” for a priority claim to an earlier application. The “specific reference” requirement under § 120 does not contemplate incorporation by reference.
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.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Netflix Prevails in Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Tiger King
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case
May 14, 2026
Webinar
May 12, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.