Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 21, 2024, Federal Circuit sitting en banc issued an opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Petitioner LKQ appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) final written decision in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding that found a design patent claim: 1) not anticipated under the ordinary observer test; and 2) not obvious under the long-standing Rosen-Durling test. Because the Rosen-Durling test is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Circuit overruled In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982) and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and adopted the same framework established for utility patents, including the application of the factors enumerated in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966),and the flexible analysis under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's finding of no anticipation, and consistent with the change in the applicable framework, vacated the Board's non-obviousness determination and remanded for further proceedings.
LKQ challenged GM's design patent covering a vehicle's front fender in an IPR proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103. Slip Op. at 5. The Board found that the challenged claim not anticipated under the ordinary observer test. Id. at 6-7. The Board further found that the challenged claim not obvious under the long-standing Rosen-Durling test because the prior art reference failed to meet the threshold Rosen requirement. Id. at 7-8. On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Board's decisions. Id. at 8. The Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Id. at 10.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.