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

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 […]

Intellectual Property Glance

The discussion on intellectual property starts with distributing it into three categories for the same of convenience and clarity. The product of intellectual efforts: The product of intellectual effort could be tangible or intangible encompassing such outcomes as literary creations, artistic creations, books, music, song, dance, drama, sculpture, paintings and even computer programs. It must […]

Why Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights create a situation in which the inventor or the creator enjoys full ownership and rights to commercial exploitation of his creation while everyone else is excluded. The justification is that such a creation, if it has material value, must benefit the creator while preventing others who would otherwise commercially exploit the concept […]

Trademarking surnames

Having difficult surnames may be challenging to explain others and also when you want to register the name as trademark. As per the trademark and merchandise act of 1958, it is stated that a mark can be refused if one choose a personal name or surname. Though, there is no such clear specification in the […]

Voluntary Cancellation of Trademark Registration

Trademark registration is a timely affair for 10 years, and it is registered as per the Trademark Act, 1999. There are certain rules and laws pertaining to trademarking a symbol for a brand. A proprietor can get a symbol, phrase of the word, or equivalent trademarked to be used for the brand. But there are […]

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 […]

US and India to join hands on the grounds of Intellectual Property Rights

After US President Donald Trump’s visit in India from February 24 to 25th February, India and the US have opted for an agreement relating to intellectual property rights or IPR. As a result of this, the cabinet sanctioned MoU with the US pertaining to IPRs, relevant to information and broadcasting as has been stated by […]

Blockchain Technology: Is it Building a Brighter Future

What is Blockchain Technology? The Blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger of transactions that can be programmed to record virtually everything of value. So a blockchain is a continuously growing list of records called blocks, which are linked and secured. It protects the identities of the users. Although transactions on the blockchain are not completely […]

These days, there is an increased use of smartphones, computers and tablets and multimedia has shown its great influence in our lives. In the digital world, there are several works used by us. Have you thought whose work are we using? Well, none of us have tried to find out the owner of the work […]

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 […]