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

The Big Push to Reform Music Copyright for the Digital Age

Music creators of the present digital age should be aware of the copyright issues better due to different reasons. Music is made available on different websites, and it is necessary to prevent the increasing problem of infringement. Pertaining to this, a number of bills are proposed in Congress that can enhance royalty payment for the […]

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 […]

Music Law 101: What Does Copyright Law Protect?

Music Law 101 is all about protecting different musical works along with sound recordings to its original creator. As copyright can be a confusing part, it is better to know what all it protects so that it becomes easy. It is known that each piece of recording has two types of copyrights. First, it protects […]

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 […]

Protection Folklores India Intellectual Property Rights

India is a land of diversity when it comes to folk and ethnic culture with hundreds of ethnic, linguistic and religious groups with diverse origins and lifestyles that, over time, intermingled in part and remained untouched in parts over centuries. Perception about folklore differs in India, mainly associated with tribals and simple rural people, rather […]

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 […]

Celebrity Rights – Public, Private or Intellectual Property

Celebrity lives are mostly public these days through different sources but they too want to maintain certain privacy. This has triggered the need to maintain celebrity rights on different properties. There are several company options that are selling products with celebrity faces from bags to soaps to cosmetics to many others. It requires suitable celebrity […]

Delhi HC’s Ex Parte Order in Coca-Cola Company & Anr vs Glacier Water Industries Ltd.

This is a case of a Delhi High court ex parte proceeding concerning trademark dilution. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages and to restrain them from passing off their products as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also pleaded the court to restrain the defendants from using the mark ‘KINLEY’ and […]

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 […]

Color Trademarks in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The trademarks are vital part of company goods or service and with help of trademark; the consumers are able to identify the business better. Before deciding the correct trademark option for pharmaceutical industry, it is necessary to check for its existence. If any similar one is already present in the trademark database, it is better […]