The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that secondary consideration evidence is an integral part of an obviousness analysis (indeed, it “may be the most pertinent, probative, and revealing evidence available to the decision maker in reaching a conclusion on the obviousness/nonobviousness issue”) and thus has mandated consideration of such evidence in assessing obviousness (Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) similarly requires consideration of secondary consideration evidence (MPEP 2145 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June. 2020). This requirement makes sense. Among the many benefits to a patent challenger, IPRs have also effectively provided petitioners (i.e., patent challengers) with a shield against disclosure of evidence that might directly undermine their obviousness arguments – evidence that they typically would have been forced to disclose in district court litigation.
Recent Posts
- Moratorium on State AI Regulation Scrapped in Senate Version of Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
- Increasing Volume of Patent Deals Could Signal Bounce in Patent Marketplace | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- How the USPTO Could Make a Permanent After-Final Consideration Program Work
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, June 27: EGC Says ‘NERO CHAMPAGNE’ Unduly Exploits Protected Designation of Origin; SCOTUS Seeks SG Views on Skinny Label Issues in Hikma; and a Big Week for Copyrights and AI
- PTAB Designates Informative Director Review Decision Vacating Institution of Two Petitions Challenging Same Claims