Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2019, Volume 44, Number 2
Content
- 2019 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Contents
- Copyright News
- Editorial Board
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2018-2019
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2018-2019
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The Licensing Corner
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- World Ip Day
- Federal Circuit Report
Federal Circuit Report
Rex Hwang
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
Shenel Ozisik
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
INTRODUCTION
In the Summer 2019 column, we will take a look at the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.1 In PersonalWeb, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (the "Board") cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (the "’310 patent") based on inherent obviousness. Another in a rising number of reversals by the Federal Circuit of improper inherent obviousness findings, PersonalWeb illustrates a discrepancy between the Federal Circuit’s articulation of inherent obviousness on one hand, and the Board’s and district courts’ applications of the doctrine on the other hand. Although the Federal Circuit has cautioned that inherent obviousness is a narrow doctrine, lingering uncertainty about its precise scope has led to its persistent misuse.