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.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Redefines Prior Art Requirements Under § 102(e)/102(a)(2): In re Riggs

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch In a significant decision, the Federal Circuit has established a more rigorous test for determining when a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application can be considered prior art as of its provisional filing date. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

Art 66
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 116
article thumbnail

Diamond Art Club Challenges USPTO’s Mass Termination of Chinese-Origin Applications in Federal Court

Patently-O

by Dennis crouch In October 2024, the USPTO terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a U.S. The bulk of the applications are Chinese origin filed through Dr. Yu "Mark" Wang, who operated a patent services firm called Wayne and King LLC (W&K).

Art 52