Filewrapper®

PTAB to Consider When Conference Materials are Prior Art

June 11, 2018
Post by Blog Staff

In a consolidated appeal from two related Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the PTAB’s findings. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion that challenged claims would not have been obvious over two specific references. However, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s determination that certain other references were not prior art because the PTAB did not fully consider all the factors for determining whether those publications were publicly accessible.

Surgical systems manufacturer Medtronic was sued for patent infringement. Medtronic then petitioned for inter partes review proceedings, which the PTAB instituted, for all claims in the two patents at issue. Medtronic submitted prior art references to assert grounds of obviousness against the claims, but the PTAB found that certain materials, although presented at different industry meetings and conferences, were not publicly accessible and therefore were not “printed publications” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §102. The PTAB thus refused to consider these materials as prior art and found that a person of ordinary skill would not have found the patent claims obvious over the valid prior art.

The CAFC directs the PTAB to consider on remand the question of whether the distribution of these materials to groups of people at conferences were sufficient to render them as printed publications under §102(b). The CAFC describes certain factors relevant to making such a judgment including the size and nature of the meetings, whether they are open to anyone interested in the subject matter, whether the materials were freely distributed, whether there was an expectation of confidentiality between the distributor and the recipients of the materials, and the expertise of the target audience.

On remand, the PTAB is to determine whether these publications were publicly accessible for prior art purposes and if so, whether they render the challenged claims obvious.


Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.