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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.