PTAB Should Not Disapprove Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in IPR

Dec 2022

Federal Circuit has disapproved of arguments of claims that show any reason other than anticipation pertaining to party procedures. Federal Circuit has rejected the challenge shown by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The company challenged that PTAB can disapprove claims that are considered indefinite in IPR.

Samsung has been charged on the grounds of infringing U.S. Patent for which it has filled IPR petition against claims 1 to 4, including 11 of 591 patents. The IPR initially was formed to deal with only claim 11 and it should not include any challenging claims of 1-4, 8. Due to this, the IPR was pending and therefore, the Supreme Court decided to include challenged claims from all grounds that are included in the petition. In this regard, the board has asked the parties to furnish supporting evidence for the new claims and grounds added.

Pertaining to the claim produced by Samsung, it requested the Board to cancel the claims 1-4, 8 for the absence of solid ground. As a result of this, the Board said that claim 11 could not be patented considering a published patent application. But it was firm about its conclusion of considering claims 1-4, 8 as indefinite. Due to this, Samsung along with Prisua opted for cross-appeal of the decision made by the Board.

Concerning this situation, Samsung has shown in regard to provisions in IPR statute that Congress has given the right to the Board to deny claims made on the grounds of indefiniteness. The court recognized that the Board should review the newly included claims as given under section 112. Though, the court has rejected Samsung’s appeal that states IPR statues enable the Board to cancel claims due to indefiniteness. The court further added that the indefiniteness might have some effects. Also, the court mentioned that if the Board is unable the right scope of the claim, it can decline to IPR for the same. Due to this dilemma, it is challenging to come up with a suitable solution with respect to the fact whether the petitioner had opted for establishing an unpatented claim under sections 102 to 103.

In response to Samsung’s argument, the court said that the Board should not have regarded the claim as ‘means-plus-function’ and concluding it on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. Adding to this, the court explained that even if claims 1-4, 8 raise questions of indefiniteness, the Board should have further examined the grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

Further, the court said that though the decision is linked to indefiniteness, it does not impact claims that are considered indefinite on other grounds. Also, the court supported the Board’s conclusion that claim 11 cannot be patented correct. So, the court wants the Board not to reject any claim on the grounds that are not available in the IPR institute. Instead the board should opt for a better analysis of the grounds before rejecting it.

Trending Blogs

For a music composer, lyricist, a producer, or any performer, protecting music is a big concern under the U.S. copyright protection laws. By copyright, it indicates legal protection that is offered to the original work of music of the creator from others to use it by their name. The copyright law shall prevent others from […]

Alibaba IPR Report Shows Ideal Brand Protection Program

As per sources, e-commerce giant, Alibaba group has successfully gained success using intellectual property rights-protection. The giant has been able to offer quality service due to well integration of the latest technological improvements coupled with partnerships with top-rated brands. Also, external stakeholders assisted the giant in offering quality service to proactively monitor, go through rights-holders […]

India dropped to 40th position in International Intellectual Property Index

India has fallen to 40th position in the International Intellectual Property Index. This index helps know about the IP climate in the 53 global economies of the present year. This is as per the report US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center. As per last year’s report, India has been ranked in the 36th […]

Protection of Acronyms under Trademark Law

It is known that acronyms are the first letters of a long phrase of words combined together. On the other hand, trademark is about a mark that shall help distinguish the product or service of goods or service from the rest of the items. Therefore, it can be said that an acronym can be registered […]

Can Religious Symbols Be Registered As Trademarks?

Are you planning to register religious symbols as trademarks? Well, you should research thoroughly to understand the use of religious symbols as trademarks. You have to consider the sentiments of people before you plan to use regions symbol for your business. India being a secular country encourages different citizen follows different religions, practicing it and […]

Intellectual Property and its Role in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Intellectual property rights are considered to be an important asset of any corporate unit. It is an indication of the creation of mind and the work that makes one entity different from the other. With better IP or intellectual rights, it would be easy to promote the possible innovations and this would be useful in […]

Drug Patents and Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs

When a drug is manufactured and released to the market in the initial period, it is sold under a certain brand names and can only be availed from a pharmacy after being prescribed by the doctor. The patent of the drug is owned by a few brands who are the only eligible brands to manufacture […]

Fluid Trademarks

Fluid mark is often thought of as a conventional mark which can be converted to a living form with some specific representation. In other words, fluid trademark is a modern method of branding that shall help achieve success easily in this digital era. As per the name, the mark tends to change with time. This […]

The Clash Of Jurisdiction Of CCI And TRAI

Overlapping Jurisdiction The Competition Act, 2002 read with section 18 of the legislation delegates to the Competition Commission of India (the “CCI”) the duty of “promoting and sustaining competition” in the Indian economy. This implies that the CCI will have principal jurisdiction to regulate conditions of competition in the relevant market of India. Whereas, Section […]

Well Known Trademark And Indian Law

What is well-known trademark? As per new Trade Mark Rules 2017, a new procedure has been created that allows the Registrar to proclaim a particular trademark as “well known”. Section 2(1)(zg) Of The Trademark Act, 1999 states that well- known trademark is a mark which has become well known to the section of the public […]