In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable

Published 02/16/2016 by Marin Cionca

In February 11, 2016 the Federal Circuit has issued a precedential opinion in an appeal related to an inter partes review (IPR) dispute between Nike, Inc. and Adidas AG at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The dispute involves U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 (the ’011 patent) owned by Nike, Inc. (Nike) and covering a unitary shoe upper. Several lessons can be learned or refreshed upon by reviewing this opinion. Some are presented succinctly below.

While a Patentee Can Present Substitute Claims in an IPR Proceedings, the Patentee has the Burden of Proof to Establish that the Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Prior Art. Here, Nike canceled all of the 46 claims challenged by Addidas and requested the entry of four substitute claims 47-50. PTAB canceled the 46 claims but denied entry of Nike’s four substitute claims. “First, the Board acknowledged the requirement announced in the Board’s Idle Free decision that a patent owner “persuade the Board that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art of record, and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner.” J.A. 34–36. Because Nike’s motion included only a conclusory statement that the proposed claims were patentable over prior art not of record but known to Nike, the Board denied Nike’s motion.” Alternatively, the Board denied entry of the substitute claims because Nike failed to establish that the substitute claims were patentable over the prior art of record. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board holding that “the Board did not err by placing the burden on Nike to establish patentability over the prior art of Nike’s proposed substitute claims.”
Another Obviousness Analysis Refresher: The Failure of the Prior Art to Recognize the Problem Solved by Patentee May Support a Finding that the Claimed Invention is NOT Obvious. A claim is not patentable when “when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court reminded us that “[t]he ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). These underlying factual considerations consist of: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as “commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,406 (2007) (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18).” Once again, the court emphasized that an obviousness inquiry requires examination of all four Graham factors and that an obviousness determination can be made only after consideration of each factor. Finally, the court reminded us that “In KSR, the Supreme Court instructed that “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” 550 U.S. at 420.” The court agreed with the PTAB that, unlike in cases where the prior art has not appreciated the problem, here, because the two prior art references of record recognized the problem solved by Nike, combining the two references was obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. However, the court agreed with Nike that the PTAB failed to consider Nike’s arguments and evidence related to secondary consideration, namely that “that reducing waste was a long-felt need in the shoe manufacturing industry” and that the prior art failed to resolve this need. The opinion further reminds us that “[e]vidence of secondary considerations plays a critical role in the obviousness analysis because it serves as objective indicia of nonobviousness and “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record. It may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538–39 (Fed. Cir. 1983).”
Drawings Themselves May Play a Key Role in Showing That the Written Description Requirement is Met. Here, Adidas contended that Nike’s substitute claims were not properly supported by the ’011 patent’s written description. “To adequately support the claims, the written description “must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (internal quotation marks omitted).” “Substantial evidence supports a finding that the specification satisfies the written description requirement when the essence of the original disclosure conveys the necessary information—regardless of how it conveys such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure’s words are open to different interpretations.” Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” After thoroughly analyzing Figs. 8 - 11 and the related description in the ‘011 patent, the court held that “substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that the proposed substitute claims are adequately supported by the written description of the ’011 patent.”

The entire Federal Circuit’s opinion may be accessed here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/s14-1719_Opinion_2-9-2016.pdf

About our firm: We are a boutique intellectual property firm with a focus on patent and trademark prosecution, offering IP services primarily at flat fee rates. We are based in Irvine, Orange County, California.

PATENT, Trademark and IP Law Blog

Marin Cionca9/13/2023 2:06:32 PM

So, who owns the “X” trademark? Is it Facebook or is it Elon Musk and his Twitter?
More
Marin Cionca7/14/2023 10:20:00 PM

CIONCA IP Supports OCIPLA
More
Marin Cionca6/1/2023 11:29:01 PM

CIONCA IP WINS AT TTAB CANCELATION OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION FOR ORANGE COUNTY CLIENT
More
CIONCA IP - MC4/1/2023 5:21:45 PM

UNICOLORS, INC. v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L. P. – A Synopsis of a Copyright Infringement Case
More
CIONCA IP - MC1/14/2023 2:21:06 PM

Broad specification or broad claims in a patent application?
More
CIONCA IP - EC12/23/2022 9:28:33 PM

Is Mariah Carey the “Queen of Christmas”?
More
CIONCA IP - MC10/7/2022 9:33:56 PM

Rejection of Invention or Rejection of Patent Claims?
More
CIONCA IP (MC)7/13/2022 5:27:56 PM

Who is the owner of the trademark? Priority and Senior User Disputes
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/6/2022 5:19:00 PM

Documentarian
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/29/2022 4:56:42 PM

An Apple from the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/22/2022 4:44:26 PM

Electrochemiluminescence
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/8/2022 4:51:08 PM

Gametime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)4/1/2022 5:05:16 PM

Screentime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/25/2022 4:58:23 PM

Internet Protocol Addresses
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)3/16/2022 5:00:54 PM

We TINK It Should Be Protected
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/4/2022 4:54:18 PM

Tinker Bell
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/25/2022 5:01:34 PM

Computer Memory
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/18/2022 4:22:47 PM

Machine or Transformation
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/11/2022 4:52:28 PM

Air Force 1
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)1/14/2022 4:52:22 PM

Fees and more Fees?
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/17/2021 4:51:21 PM

Royalty or Lowborn
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/10/2021 5:06:54 PM

Short-Range Wireless Networks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/3/2021 4:58:39 PM

TIGHT or TITE
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/19/2021 4:57:10 PM

TAG Your It!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/12/2021 4:56:57 PM

Medical Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/5/2021 4:40:14 PM

Authentic Army
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/29/2021 4:49:28 PM

Scouting Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/22/2021 4:10:03 PM

Free Speech and Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/15/2021 4:55:32 PM

DNA of Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/8/2021 5:02:03 PM

Backyard Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/1/2021 4:58:25 PM

Take a seat and read about seats
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/24/2021 5:15:50 PM

Let's take a ride on the Segway!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/17/2021 4:57:53 PM

An Apple off the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/10/2021 4:59:08 PM

VROOM VROOM VROOM
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/3/2021 4:56:24 PM

On Copyrights of Annotations.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/27/2021 4:55:40 PM

Rejecting Trademark Contracts
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/20/2021 4:42:46 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World (Pt. 2)
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/13/2021 4:57:49 PM

Personalized Medication
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/6/2021 4:39:04 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/31/2021 3:21:56 AM

Ice Cream, You Scream
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/23/2021 4:12:50 PM

Cereal Killer
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/16/2021 5:00:45 PM

Buy me a ring, darling
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/7/2021 2:52:33 PM

Offensiveness vs Free Speech in Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/25/2021 4:45:12 PM

Woof Woof - Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/18/2021 5:29:44 PM

Forum Selection 101
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/11/2021 4:23:58 PM

Willful v Innocent
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/17/2021 2:38:30 PM

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/23/2021 5:34:02 PM

Oracle Patent Problems
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/5/2021 5:38:23 PM

Blockchain and the Expanding US Patent Landscape
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (MC)3/24/2021 2:19:11 PM

Invention and Art Analogy
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BR)1/19/2021 4:57:54 PM

QuikTrip West, Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (AP)12/7/2020 4:06:28 PM

St Jude Medical LLC v Snyders Heart Valve LLC
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/1/2020 5:07:58 PM

Allen v. Cooper, Governor of North Carolina
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (JM)10/8/2020 2:57:24 PM

Royal Crown Company Inc., Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Inc., v The Coca-Cola Company
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SG)10/6/2020 2:42:35 PM

Apple, Inc., v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.: Sanction Orders and Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team (SE)9/16/2020 4:21:45 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Patent Website
More
CIONCA IP Team9/15/2020 5:11:49 PM

Comparing Apples to Apples: TTAB on In re Horizon Group USA, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP Team9/3/2020 4:30:41 PM

D2 Holdings v. House of Cards
More
CIONCA IP Team8/31/2020 12:09:17 PM

Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team8/11/2020 11:56:24 AM

Adidas AG v. Nike INC.
More
CIONCA IP Team7/20/2020 7:40:21 PM

Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc.: Joint Parties in IPR Proceeding
More
CIONCA IP Team7/14/2020 7:51:31 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Trademark Website
More
CIONCA IP 5/19/2020 7:36:30 PM

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.: “Obvious to Try” Rationale
More
Marin Cionca4/15/2020 4:41:43 PM

The Day After COVID-19 Pandemic – Hope or Fear?
More
CIONCA IP4/13/2020 9:33:36 PM

Two of a Kind: TTAB on Shannon DeVivo v. Celeste Ortiz
More
CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM

GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct
More
CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.
More
Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM

Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question
More
CIONCA IP 1/15/2020 4:47:19 PM

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC: Presumption of Nexus
More
CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM

The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
More
CIONCA IP 12/31/2019 4:29:41 PM

The Chamberlain Group, INC. v. One World Technologies, INC.
More
Marin Cionca12/9/2019 8:07:20 PM

A “glove” approach to patent claim construction
More
11/15/2019 8:15:11 PM

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.: Objective Indicia and Copying
More
CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM

To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment
More
CIONCA IP10/7/2019 5:44:50 PM

A Decision in Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC
More
Marin Cionca9/27/2019 9:32:48 PM

Can an Online Patent Attorney File My Patent?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries
More
CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM

In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction
More
CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM

Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation
More
CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM

In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications
More
CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM

Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.
More
Marin Cionca6/11/2019 8:43:17 PM

Can I Successfully License My Invention?
More
CIONCA Team Member5/20/2019 8:25:57 PM

PTAB Designates Cases as Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member5/7/2019 7:13:41 PM

The Federal Circuit Defines a Technological Invention
More
Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM

What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?
More
CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM

Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
More
Marin Cionca3/1/2019 9:36:50 PM

USPTO Director Andrei Iancu Visits Orange County!
More
CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM

Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims
More
CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM

TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC
More
Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM

Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent
More
CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM

In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement
More
CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM

Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname
More
Marin Cionca12/8/2018 8:35:06 PM

IP Assets - Procurement, Enforcement, Monetization
More
CIONCA Team Member11/19/2018 1:07:51 PM

The Appeals Process
More
CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM

A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term
More
Marin Cionca10/1/2018 7:42:12 PM

Can I Register a Color as a Trademark or Service Mark?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM

Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
More
Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM

Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout
More
Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM

Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit
More
Marin Cionca7/31/2018 6:50:05 PM

My patent expired? Can I still sue for patent infringement?
More
7/3/2018 7:44:33 PM

Impax Laboratories Inc. v Lannett Holdings Inc. on Claim Invalidation
More
CIONCA IP5/17/2018 9:54:58 PM

Marin Cionca Presents at OCIPLA May 2018 Luncheon
More
5/4/2018 7:37:51 PM

The Hague System for Protection of International Designs
More
CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM

USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.
More
CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM

It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision
More
3/20/2018 12:50:05 PM

Andrei Iancu - New Director of the USPTO
More
3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM

Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance
More
CIONCA Team2/16/2018 4:07:48 PM

Fashion and Intellectual Property
More
CIONCA Team1/17/2018 8:12:06 PM

A Fork in the Road: Production or Protection?
More
1/2/2018 7:47:09 PM

The Lanham Act: Disparagement Provision Violates the First Amendment
More
12/26/2017 6:04:25 PM

CIONCA Sets Foot in San Francisco
More
12/1/2017 8:01:27 PM

An Introduction to Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications
More
11/17/2017 1:24:20 PM

An Introduction to Patent Searches
More
11/10/2017 6:47:44 PM

An Introduction to Design Patent Applications
More
Staff11/3/2017 4:20:04 PM

An Introduction to Provisional Patent Applications
More
Staff9/28/2017 7:27:22 PM

CIONCA
More
staff9/27/2017 5:12:07 PM

CIONCA - Patent and Trademark Law Attorney
More
staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM

Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience
More
staff9/15/2017 9:33:30 PM

cionca
More
CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM

CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued
More
CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM

Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable
More
CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM

Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution
More
CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM

Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement
More
Marin Cionca4/25/2017 9:48:49 PM

Monetization of Patents: How to Make Money with Patents
More
Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM

Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable
More
Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM

Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents
More
Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM

Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter
More
Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin Cionca5/17/2016 8:57:23 PM

Patent Claims Rejection Based on Inherency
More
Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM

Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction
More
I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.
More
Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM

In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable
More
M. Cionca and I. Kim2/4/2016 5:55:16 PM

Software Inventions Are Still Patentable!
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:10:56 PM

How Unpredictability Can Affect Obviousness Challenges
More
Marin11/19/2015 2:13:05 PM

An Innovator’s Dilemma: Design or Utility Patent?
More
Marin11/18/2015 7:31:35 PM

When Is a Thesis Prior Art?
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM

Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:11:11 PM

PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter
More

Marin Cionca, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

USPTO Reg. No. 63899

VERIFY

CIONCA IP's Patents and Trademarks Success Numbers as of 2022

CONTACT INFO

SEE MORE CONTACT INFO

About CIONCA® IP Law firm: We are an Irvine, Orange County, California based boutique intellectual property law firm with a focus on patent and trademark application, prosecution, opinion, licensing and IP enforcement services, including IP litigation, offering its IP services, other than IP litigation, primarily at flat fee rates. We serve local OC (Orange County) clients, as well as clients from the Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside Counties and clients throughout the state of California, the United States and also international clients, such as EU clients.

HOME

Let’s talk!

We’d love to hear from you…we just need a little info
about your plans to take over the world!

P.S…Feel free to call us! (800)985-9198

In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable

PATENT, Trademark and IP Law Blog

CONTACT INFO

Let’s talk!

QuickContact 24/7

1-800-454-1360