About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Releases Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2021 | Main | Webinar on Patent Drafting for Machine Learning »

February 24, 2022


Worth noting that these patents were all challenged in parallel IPRs. The PTAB held that Teva had not proven unpatentability of any of these same challenged claims, even as the District Court (under a higher standard of proof) held them all obvious. Go figure...

Well the majority said it was a close case and, frankly, shouldn't we expect the PTAB to "get it right" more often in close cases than the Court (no matter how often those expectations might have been shattered)? But it is paradoxical in view of the burden of proof. On the other hand this is a little like the Monty Hall problem: the Federal Circuit knew that the district court had done and could defer on the factual grounds of their obviousness decision.

Thanks for the comment.

Interesting case. Just going by this summary, even though I'm not usually inclined to agree with Judge Newman, it seems like she has a point here. Long-felt need for a better product is quite a different animal from a motivation to combine the specific elements present in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Maybe I'm missing something that's only apparent from reading the underlying opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29