In a CBM appeal, TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1121 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2017) (non-prec.), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the word “said” in the claim term “said hyperlink,” and determined that TransPerfect’s challenged claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. The court’s claim construction analysis is thorough and well supported, but the treatment of the challenged patent as CBM-eligible appears to be inconsistent with Federal Circuit precedent.
More Posts
Uncorroborated Declaration Not Sufficient to Avoid § 102(e) Prior Art
Owner of Hot-Work Steel Processing Patent Burned by Its Own IPR Evidence
What Claim Construction Standard Applies If a Patent Expires During IPR Appeal?
Federal Circuit Upholds Cancellation of Micrografx Patent Claims for Anticipation
Federal Circuit Limits Scope of CBM Reviews
PTAB’s Reconsideration of Institution Decision Unreviewable on Appeal
Petitioner Avoids One-Year Time Bar by Acquiring ANDAs after Filing IPR Petition
PTAB Improperly Shifted Burden of Proof in IPR
Supreme Court Upholds Use of BRI Standard in Cuozzo
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org