In
The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that Section 311 limits petitioners to challenges "under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." The Court held that "the 'patents or printed publications' that form the 'basis' of a ground for inter partes review must themselves be prior art to the challenged patent." The Court concluded that admissions concerning the prior art, made in the challenged patent's specification, are "not contained in a document that is a prior art patent or prior art printed publication," as required. Descriptions of the prior art contained in the challenged patent are excluded from the permitted grounds. Id. at 11-12. In addition to the language of Section 311(b), the Federal Circuit relied upon
[Section 311(b)] excludes any descriptions of the prior art contained in the challenged patent.
The court did, however, declare that admissions in the challenged patent concerning the teachings of the prior art would be permitted as "evidence of the general knowledge of a skilled artisan" to "supply a missing claim limitation or support[] a motivation to combine." The court remanded for the PTAB to determine whether the AAPA was permissibly cited as support for the artisan's general knowledge, or whether it "improperly formed the 'basis' of Apple's challenge."
The Federal Circuits decision illustrates the care petitioner's should exercise in crafting their invalidity challenges. Petitioners must cross each "t' and dot each "i" in articulating the basis of their challenges. Short-cuts, however attractive, must be avoided.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
IL 60606-6357
Tel: 312474 6300
Fax: 312474 0448
E-mail: marshall.gerstein.borun@marshallip.com
URL: www.marshallip.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source