article thumbnail

Published but not Public? Federal Circuit Confirms Published Patent Applications Count as Prior Art from Filing Date in IPRs.

JD Supra Law

14, 2025), addressing whether a published patent application can serve as prior art in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings as of its filing date. On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. Samsung Electronics Co., 23-2346 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms That Published Patent Applications Are Prior Art in IPRs As Of Their Filing Dates, Not Their Publication Dates

JD Supra Law

In its decision, the CAFC considered the question of when a published patent application is deemed prior art in an inter partes review (IPR). 10,687,400 unpatentable. Lynk Labs, Inc. Samsung Elecs. January 14, 2025). By: A&O Shearman

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Understanding IPO’s Rejection of UPL’s Patent Application for Mancozeb and Ortho Silicic Acid Combination in Light of the Patent Bargain and Sufficiency of Disclosure

SpicyIP

Recently, the Indian Patent Office rejected a patent application by UPL Ltd. for lack of sufficient disclosure mandated under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act. It is in this light that the recent order by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejecting UPL’s patent application (pdf) becomes important.

article thumbnail

Tillis and Leahy Urge USPTO to Address Inconsistent Prior Art Statements by Patent Applicants at the FDA

IP Watchdog

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), discussing the issue of inconsistent statements made by patent applicants pursuant to their disclosure requirements at the USPTO and other federal agencies, especially the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

article thumbnail

Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20)

The IPKat

The EPO Guidelines for Examination require the description of a patent application to summarise the background art ( F-II-4.3 ). This requirement usually manifests with a request from the Examiner for the description to be amended to identify the closest prior art. D8 is a patent relating to a filing unit.

Art 115
article thumbnail

Before the Breakthrough: Does Prior Art Include Wrongfully Published Applications?

SpicyIP

Vandana Parvez vs The Controller of Patents , dealt with a withdrawn patent application that had been wrongfully published and then later cited as prior art for the same applicant’s subsequent patent application! What Reasoning Did the Court Give for its Decision?

Art 105
article thumbnail

CAFC Says USPTO Arguments for Rejecting Google Patent Application Lack Support in Record

IP Watchdog

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that certain claims of Google, LLC’s U.S. Patent Application No. 14/628,093 were obvious. The CAFC opinion, authored by Chief Judge Moore, said the U.S.