David B. Cochran at Jones Day has an interesting article on this subject.
http://www.ptablitigationblog.com/ptab-determines-patents-file-history-printed-publication/
For matters of 35 U.S.C. Section 103, references may be combined to show that persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found that invention obvious in light of those references. This is known as "the obviousness standard" in patent law. A "printed publication" is one type of reference that may be used to invalidate a patent under this standard.
In the IPR case of Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L, et al. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that a patent's own file history can serve as a "printed publication" for 103 purposes. This means that if you are ever faced with an infringement action, be sure to check the file history of the very patent being cited against you. If you are lucky, there may be some ammunition there that can be used to invalidate the patent.
http://www.ptablitigationblog.com/ptab-determines-patents-file-history-printed-publication/
For matters of 35 U.S.C. Section 103, references may be combined to show that persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found that invention obvious in light of those references. This is known as "the obviousness standard" in patent law. A "printed publication" is one type of reference that may be used to invalidate a patent under this standard.
In the IPR case of Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L, et al. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that a patent's own file history can serve as a "printed publication" for 103 purposes. This means that if you are ever faced with an infringement action, be sure to check the file history of the very patent being cited against you. If you are lucky, there may be some ammunition there that can be used to invalidate the patent.
RSS Feed