Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC resolving a longstanding district court split by holding that IPR estoppel does not extend to system art “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public.”
A “known technique” only needs to be a suitable replacement to support a conclusion of obviousness
A claim that recites a combination of prior art elements may be obvious when the combination merely involves the use of a “known technique” that “has been used to improve one device” to “improve similar devices in the same way.”
Don’t Xerox conclusory assertions in the expert declaration
Expert testimony can be critical to support or defend against invalidity challenges in AIA trials, but must be adequately explained to be effective. In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2023), Director Vidal