PTAB Finds Copyright Notice and Catalog Listing Insufficient as Proof of Public Availability

Jan 13, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

The panel rejected the petitioner’s arguments. The panel found that, although a copyright notice “may be evidence of the date of a reference,” crucially, it “sheds virtually no light on whether the document was publicly accessible as of that date.” For the first manual, the copyright notice suggested that the distribution was “restricted and limited to persons who acquired the underlying . . . product.” Furthermore, the catalog listing did not supply evidence of when each manual was publicly available. The listing itself had no creation date, and the catalog was copyrighted after the priority date.

The panel found different problems with the evidence advanced for the second manual. The manual had multiple copyright dates straddling the priority date, and the petitioner had failed to show that the earliest date was the correct one. The catalog listing failed to resolve the competing copyright dates, and it also could not provide sufficient evidence of public availability.

Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2017)

[Tartal (opinion), Elluru, Fishman]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.