The case was successfully settled shortly after Mr. Randall obtained an expert report from the author of several key prior art references and damaging testimony from the inventors concerning the patentability of the asserted
patent over that 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.
Thus, many
patent owners opt to file preliminary statements arguing that no basis for review exists by distinguishing the claims
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.
From a common sense perspective, the public would expect that if Lilly has based their new
patent on new advantages
over the
prior art, then they should be held to demonstrating or predicting such advantages.