Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek.Despite most drivers getting their miles muddled, 90% say they are confident in the accuracy of their predictions.Rod Jones, insurance expert at u Switch.com, said: 'While many of us are guilty of relying on gut feeling when providing our mileage information when applying for a car insurance policy, misjudging the number of miles you drive in a year can have a real impact on your wallet.'If you drive fewer miles than you predict you could easily cut the cost of your next policy. This Facebook post is largely based on a 9 March 2018 MSNBC segment that featured reporter Garrett Haake speaking with employees at a Harley Davidson plant in Kansas City, Missouri., which affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidation of claims in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The PTAB determined that a “petitioner in an inter partes review proves unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence (see 35 U. , acknowledging that it is entirely possible that a district court may find a patent claim to be valid but that the USPTO may later cancel the claim on its own review. The presumption of validity is unmistakable, not at all ambiguous, and exceptionally direct. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the record in federal court was not identical to the record at the PTAB. Novartis argued to the Federal Circuit that the arguments presented to the PTAB by Noven, as well as the prior art submitted to support those arguments, were the same as considered during litigation in federal court.
Patent claims being adjudicated valid in federal district court and then being killed in an administrative proceeding at the PTAB is exactly the problem so many of us saw coming. 282, different outcomes are practically inevitable. District courts are now subordinate to the omnipotent PTAB.
Earlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a major decision interpreting provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), specifically the AIA on-sale bar provisions.
In , the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Mayer and O’Malley determined: “after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in the terms of sale” for the sale to be invalidating.
Judge Wallach, who was joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Stoll in this decision, wrote: [E]ven if the record were the same, Novartis’s argument would fail as a matter of law. § 316(e)) rather than by clear and convincing evidence as required in district court litigation,” meaning that the PTAB properly may reach a different conclusion based on the same evidence. 282 says: “A patent shall be presumed valid.” Interestingly, § 282 does not say that the presumption is voided in proceedings at the PTAB, but in their infinite wisdom the PTAB (and USPTO) do not think patents are required to be presumed valid at the PTAB. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why the Federal Circuit continues to allow the PTAB to ignore the presumption of validity that is so clearly and directly written into § 282.
But the Federal Circuit went further, saying that even if the records were identical Novartis’ argument would have to fail.