- Deere Loses Patent Challenge at Federal Circuit – The Federal Circuit rejected Deere & Co.’s attempt to invalidate a patent over combine crop harvester technology as a misrepresentation of the PTAB’s decision.
- Federal Circuit Unlikely To Nix Apple’s Win In Memory Patent Case – Qualcomm met resistance when arguing before the Federal Circuit that the PTAB did not construe a key term in invalidating Qualcomm’s patent.
Here’s the latest.
Deere Loses Combine Patent Challenge at Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Deere & Co. v. Gramm affirming the PTAB’s decision in favor of Gramm, the owner of a combine crop harvester technology patent. Blake Brittain summarizes the opinion where the Federal Circuit rejected Deere’s argument that the PTAB incorrectly defined a term within the patent which excluded the prior art.
The court said the challenged ruling was about whether the prior art included the patent’s biasing means, and was therefore a “factual finding subject to appellate review for substantial evidence” rather than a claim construction question subject to less-strict de novo review.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit determined that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s validity ruling and did not credit Deere’s arguments about the claim term and the prior art.
For more information, see our coverage.
Federal Circuit Unlikely To Nix Apple’s Win In Memory Patent Case
Qualcomm and Apple argued on Friday before the Federal Circuit in Qualcomm’s appeal over the PTAB’s ruling to invalidate Qualcomm’s memory patent. Khorri Atkinson recaps Qualcomm’s argument for a remand of Apple’s win due to the PTAB incorrectly finding the claims to be unpatentable. However, the panel was not receptive to the argument that the PTAB failed to construe a claim term.
Judge Jimmie V. Reyna took issue with Swize’s [counsel for Qualcomm] usage of the word “synchronization,” which he said is not even mentioned in the patent’s specification. “Why would we rely on a definition outside the specification?” Judge Reyna asked, adding that Swize is “dragging intrinsic evidence onto the specification.”
Judge Taranto and Judge Stoll, the other judges on the panel, echoed Judge Reyna’s reasoning that Qualcomm’s argument may not be enough to overturn the PTAB.