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

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

An Overview of Copyright

WIPO defines copyright as the right of creators to ownership of their creations and to make use for commercial or other purposes. Copyright today covers literary creations, printed material, computer programs, data, audiovisual media, dance, paintings and drawings, photographs, sculpture, architecture, ad material, technical drawings and others that are the outcome of intellectual effort. From […]

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 […]

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 […]

Patents – An Important Tool for Pharmaceutical Industry

For suitable protection of medical inventions, patents are the perfect option. This would also safeguard medical discoveries that are research-based and it is done by most of the pharmaceutical companies. In return for the protection offered by the patent, it can disclose the research used in coming up with the medical innovation in the pharmaceutical […]

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 […]

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 […]