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

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 […]

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 […]

Lack of Music Publishing Knowledge Robbing Indian Artists of their Rights

In India there has been a lack of knowledge regarding publishing music. It can be said that a large part of publishing an art for is still unexplored. It is not about the common people but the artists and the music companies are oblivious towards it. At the initial stage due to lack of knowledge […]

Evaluation Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property has always existed since the dawn of time but there were no laws in place for their protection. Intellectual property is intangible asset, be it music, creative writing, arts, discoveries, inventions and development of unique words, symbols and artwork. Intellectual property rights is a generic term that covers copyright, industrial design, trade secrets, […]

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 […]

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 […]

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

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 […]

Why Is Protection of Geographical Indication or Designation of Origin Essential?

Having knowing regarding geographical indication along with designation of origin is something that is of great need these days. Geographical indication or GI indicates a symbol, name or sign relating to a product that corresponds to a definite geographical origin, product’s features, qualities that are due from the origin. To make a sign work as […]

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 […]