Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Denial of Motion to Amend

Sep 2, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

In April 2014, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,527 (the “’527 patent”), which is directed to processes for restoring computer data. The petitioner, Veeam Software Corp. (“Veeam”), challenged the patentability of Veritas’s patent based on prior art that disclosed block-level restoration processes. Veritas, however, argued that the challenged claims did not encompass such processes and were more narrowly limited to file-level background restoration processes. Veritas also filed a contingent motion to amend the claims if the PTAB ultimately found the challenged claims to be unpatentable. Veritas’s claim amendments sought to expressly limit the claims to file-level background restoration processes.

In its April 2015 final written decision, the PTAB construed the challenged claims to encompass block-level restoration processes and rejected all of the challenged claims as obvious in view of the prior art. The PTAB also denied Veritas’s contingent motion to amend, ruling that its motion was deficient for failure to discuss how Veritas’s claim amendments would render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the PTAB explained that Veritas “offer[ed] no discussion of whether the newly added features” in its claim amendments were “separately known in the art.” Instead, according to the PTAB, Veritas only discussed how “the newly added feature[s] in combination with other known features [were] not in the prior art.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination, but held that the PTAB erred in denying Veritas’s motion to amend. The Federal Circuit stated that the PTAB’s basis for denying the motion to amend was “unreasonable and hence must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious.” The court explained that it had “been shown no reason to doubt that it is only the combination that was the ‘new feature,’ a scenario recognized in a long line of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit cases noting that novel and nonobvious inventions often are only a combination of known individual features.” The court further noted that it failed “to see how describing the combination is meaningfully different from describing what is new about the proposed claims, even in comparison to the unamended claims.” Therefore, the Federal Circuit “d[id] not see how the Board could reasonably demand more from Veritas in this case”  and vacated and remanded the case for a determination of the patentability of the proposed amended claims.

Notably, the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion “independently of any resolution of [the] [C]ourt’s recently initiated en banc proceeding in In re Aqua Products.”

Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016)”

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.