Thus, many patent owners opt to file preliminary statements arguing that no basis for review exists by distinguishing
the claims over the prior art.
Not exact matches
In a set of five separate opinions spanning
over 140 pages, the appeals court rejected the current PTAB requirement that the patent owner bears the entire burden of proving that proposed amended
claims are patentable
over the
prior art.
We agree with Patent Owner that «[t] here is no requirement for Shire to prove, after the Institution Decision, that original non-amended
claims are patentable
over all potential
prior art, especially non-instituted
claims.»
If a defendant in a patent case advocates a broad
claim construction, the agenda is, as it is in this case, invalidation: for a broad patent it's easier to find
prior art, or to argue obviousness
over prior art.