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

3D Printing and IPR

The three-dimensional or 3D printing service is different from the traditional way of manufacturing. In the 3D process, objects are created layer wise to get the desired three dimensional impacts. Since the inception of this latest idea in 1980s, it has gone through several changes in the technology used. This requires use of different production […]

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

Intellectual Property Rights in the Era of Counterfeit Goods

The industry of counterfeited products has taken shape due to the desire of customers to get hands-on high quality item at reasonable rates. They have great satisfaction in this and this is where the counterfeited goods are made available in the market. Different world markets are full of counterfeited products ranging from cosmetics, electronics, footwear, […]

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 […]

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 […]

Pharma Companies File 15% of Patents in India

The Indian Pharma industry is primarily known for its Generic Drugs. But recently, to push its value higher in the market, the Indian pharmaceutical industry is investing more in research and development of new drugs along with increasing the potency of the existing ones to move up the value chain. From 2013-2015, out of the […]

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 […]

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 […]

Liability Of Internet Service Providers In Digital Environment

Isp Liability In India: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can be liable for the content on the sites they host. They can be liable even if they were merely passively hosting the site, unless they take down the objectionable material when they receive notice of it. The Copyright Act and the Information Technology Act includes the […]

The Common Law Protection Of Trade Secrets And The Need For A Statue

Introduction: A trade secret is anything you use in your business that gives you an advantage over your competitors. A trade secret can be a recipe, process, formula, strategy, technique or device that your competitors do not know, do not have, and cannot use. With development in technology, as well as the ease of sharing, […]