Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2019, Volume 44, Number 2
Content
- Federal Circuit Report
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2018-2019
- World Ip Day
- Editorial Board
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Letter from the Chair
- Copyright News
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2018-2019
- Contents
- Case Comments
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- The Licensing Corner
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- 2019 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
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.