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

Drug Patents and Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs

When a drug is manufactured and released to the market in the initial period, it is sold under a certain brand names and can only be availed from a pharmacy after being prescribed by the doctor. The patent of the drug is owned by a few brands who are the only eligible brands to manufacture […]

Early-Stage Intellectual Property to Raise More Money

What is Artificial Intelligence? Creation of innovative ideas is what matters the most in running a business. People were least bothered to patent the designs. But with increasing use of almost similar ideas in the businesses, it is of great importance to patent the ideas. This shall help in better growth of the business and […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law

What is Artificial Intelligence? The division of Science which deals with making machines equipped with human-like intelligence to act in human-like fashion and the exhibit human capabilities is known as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Multiple disciplines like Computer Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, Mathematics, Biology and Neuron Science contribute to the development of AI. Benefits Of AI […]

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 […]

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 […]

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, […]