{"id":1773,"date":"2017-09-15T20:14:25","date_gmt":"2017-09-16T00:14:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1773"},"modified":"2017-10-01T21:15:03","modified_gmt":"2017-10-02T01:15:03","slug":"response-arguments-do-not-have-to-be-preemptively-addressed-in-the-petition-or-institution-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1773","title":{"rendered":"Response Arguments Do Not Have to Be Preemptively Addressed in the Petition or Institution Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/16-2721.Opinion.9-14-2017.1.PDF\">Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v.\u00a0SFC Co. Ltd.<\/a>, [2016-2721](September 15, 2017), affirmed\u00a0the PTAB decision that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,334,648 were invalid for obviousness.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal Idemitsu\u00a0argued that the Board erred in finding that prior art taught combining the particular compounds for the\u00a0purpose of creating a light emitting layer in an electroluminescent\u00a0device.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit found that what Idemitsu characterizes\u00a0as an argument raised \u201ctoo late\u201d was simply the\u00a0by-product of one party necessarily getting the last word.<br \/>\nIdemitsu argued that the prior art teaches away from combinations, and SFC\u00a0simply countered, as it was entitled to do. The Federal Circuit found that to the extent\u00a0Idemitsu suggests that the Board could not reach a counterargument\u00a0because it was not preemptively addressed\u00a0by the petition or institution decision, Idemitsu is plainly\u00a0mistaken. The Federal Circuit noted that there is no requirement, either in the Board\u2019s\u00a0 regulations, in the APA, or as a matter of due process, for\u00a0the institution decision to anticipate and set forth every\u00a0legal or factual issue that might arise in the course of the\u00a0trial.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v.\u00a0SFC Co. Ltd., [2016-2721](September 15, 2017), affirmed\u00a0the PTAB decision that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,334,648 were invalid for obviousness. On appeal Idemitsu\u00a0argued that the Board erred in finding that prior art taught combining the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1773\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inter-partes-review"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1773"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1773\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1775,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1773\/revisions\/1775"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}