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

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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, […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

Domain Name Disputes in India

Domain Name As Trademarks A domain name which is unique, capable of identifying itself and distinguishing its goods and services from those of others and acts as a reliable source identifier of concerned goods and services on the internet may be registered as a trademark. Domain Name Disputes A domain name dispute would arise when […]