Effect of KSR on Summary Judgment Decisions on Obviousness

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Pre-Answer Motions. 12(b)(1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Should have been in state rather than federal court 12(b)(2) Personal Jurisdiction This court.

Advertisements

Overview of Education Litigation FEA Delegate Assembly October, 2012.

Is Everything Obvious after KSR? Holland Smith IEOR 190G 4/13/2009.

The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)

(A Very Brief) Introduction to Civil Procedure Professor Pauline Kim August 23, 2012.

Why Did the Number of New Patent Cases Stop Rising? By Greg Upchurch LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School Adjunct Professor-Washington.

Jeopardy Facts 1IssuesReasoning Educators Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Final Jeopardy Facts 2.

Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements.

Summary of Supplemental Admiralty Rule B Attachment Prepared by: Freehill Hogan & Mahar, LLP.

Law and Motion. A Motion is an application to the court requesting some kind of relief or court order May be oral or written General types of motions.

Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch

American Tort Law Carolyn McAllaster Clinical Professor of Law Duke University School of Law.

©2002 Marger Johnson & McCollom PC, All Rights Reserved. Intellectual Property Presentation for 2002 High Technology Protection Summit Presented by Alexander.

Patent Litigaton Strategies in Israel Reuven Behar, partner Fischer Behar Chen & Co.

U.S. District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals

Announcements Beginning Friday at 12:00 p.m., you and your moot court partner may sign up as Appellees or Appellants. The sign-up sheet will be posted.

Bell Work Take out your notebooks. You will be taking a Chapter 5 Notes “Quiz” to help emphasize the main concepts from this chapter.

Is the Patent Pilot Program Doomed to Fail? By Greg Upchurch LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School Adjunct Professor-Washington University.

Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch

Number and Win Rates on Trademark Preliminary Injunctions: By Greg Upchurch LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School First in Litigation.

BA 619 Legal Environment of Business Introduction to the Law Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law.

The Effect of the Supreme Court Decision on Patent Reform Legislation John F. Duffy Professor of Law George Washington University Law School © 2007 John.

CIVIL PROCEDURE 2002 Class 8 September 13, 2002 Professor Fischer.

 decimals/cc-7th-fracs-to-decimals/v/converting-fractions-to-decimals-example.

Mon. Nov. 26. Work Product “Privilege” A witness, X, who is friendly to the D was interviewed by P’s attorney and a statement was drawn up Is there any.

Stanford undergone surgery and started taking a narcotic painkiller and became addicted to it. After going in and out of treatment, he received disability.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.

Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication LA 310.

Judicial Branch Federal District Courts (94 Courts in 12 Districts) Federal Appeals Court (12 Appeals Courts +1 Special Appeals Court) Supreme Court (Highest.

Tues. Nov. 27. terminating litigation before trial 2.

Article 10 Protocol of Queretaro California Land Act of 1851

Nationwide Patent Litigation Statistics By Greg Upchurch, Esq. LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School 1975 Adjunct Professor-Washington.

1 Working the IP Case Steve Baron Sept. 3, Today’s Agenda  Anatomy of an IP case  The Courts and the Law  Links to finding cases  Parts of.

COPYRIGHT LAW 2001 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Prof. Fischer Class 19 (MARCH 26, 2002)

Background and Summary ©Copyright, 2007, LegalMetric, LLC, All Rights Reserved The Supreme Court KSR decision was issued on April 30, Since the decision,

Nationwide Trademark Litigation Statistics By Greg Upchurch, Esq. LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School 1975 Adjunct Professor-Washington.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 9 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Sept. 16, 2002.

United States v. Miami University (Ohio) EDL: 276 Applications of School Law, Mandates and Policies.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 22 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 16, 2002.

PREPARING FOR LAW CLASSES Orientation YOU ARE HERE.

BA 665 Computers and the Law Introduction to the Law Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law.

International Court of Justice Enforcing the Law?.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 25 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 22, 2003.

HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LITIGATION ABA – IP Section, April 9, 2011 Committee 601 – Trial and Appellate Rules & Procedures Moderator: David Marcus Speakers:

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH The Federal Court System established in Article III established in Article III.

Trending Down: Contested Judgment Win Rates in Patent Cases By Greg Upchurch LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School.

KELLER MGMT 520 Week 3 Assignment Check this A+ tutorial guideline at For more classes.

The Newly Enjoined Overtime Rule: What happens now

Amy Semet, Princeton University

Nationwide Patent Litigation Statistics

Percentage of Faculty Members by Rank,

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.

Case Briefing Exercise

§ 101 Motion Success After Alice (Nationwide)

Federal Circuit Rulings by Issue

Changing Win Rates in Patent Litigation

Chapter 6 Issue Identification

RULE 11 Terminology Big theme “Satellite litigation”

Class size since 2007 in NYC public schools

Introduction to the Law

ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)

§ 101 Motion Success After Alice

Class size trends in NYC public schools

Identify the powers of the judicial branch

Introduction to the Law

Class size trends in NYC public schools

Judicial Branch Vocabulary

7-1: The Federal Court System

Multiple Defendants in Patent Cases

Panel Discussion on Hearings Case Management Projects

Presentation transcript:

Effect of KSR on Summary Judgment Decisions on Obviousness By Greg Upchurch LegalMetric Director of Research J.D.-Yale Law School Adjunct Professor-Washington University School of Law

Possible Effects of KSR Change in Percentage of Obviousness Summary Judgment Motions Decided on the Merits--Valid (Not Invalid) or Invalid as Opposed to Genuine Issue of Material Fact, Failure of Proof, etc. Change in Percentage of Motions Where One or More Claims is Held Valid (Not Invalid) or Invalid

Percentage of Decisions Holding At Least One Claim Valid (Not Invalid) or Invalid

Percentage of Decisions Holding At Least One Claim Valid (Not Invalid) or Invalid The percentage of decisions deciding obviousness motions on the merits (valid or invalid) increased from 36% (pre-KSR) to 43% (post-KSR) The percentage of decisions not on the merits (genuine issue of material fact, etc.) decreased from 64% (pre-KSR) to 57% (post-KSR)

Valid (Not Invalid) v. Invalid Obviousness Rulings

Valid (Not Invalid) v. Invalid Obviousness Rulings Validity Rulings (as a percentage of all obviousness summary judgment decisions) fell from 23% (pre-KSR) to 17% (post-KSR) Invalidity Rulings rose from 12% (pre-KSR) to 26% (post-KSR)

Valid (Not Invalid) v. Invalid Obviousness Rulings

Valid (Not Invalid) v. Invalid Obviousness Rulings The percentage of validity rulings as a fraction of all validity/invalidity rulings fell from 66% to 40%

Source Data Extracted from the Decisions in LegalMetric’s Obviousness Decisions Library (2010)(over 270 decisions on obviousness from the district courts nationwide since 2004)