Executive Summary1 min read
Key Takeaways
- The episode, titled ‘Greedy, Lazy Patents = Invalid,’ traces how common drafting errors—lazy drafting and overly greedy claiming—inexorably lead to weak, vulnerable patents.
- The case study is Owens Corning v. Fast Felt, involving a patent on gravure-deposited nail tabs for roof shingles.
- In that case, the Federal Circuit invalidated the patent for obviousness even though its claims had already survived the inter partes review (IPR) process.
- The core lesson is that surviving IPR review doesn’t guarantee a patent will hold up against a later obviousness challenge in federal court if the underlying claims were drafted too greedily or carelessly.
The Bottom Line: Surviving inter partes review is not a guarantee of validity—as Owens Corning v. Fast Felt shows, greedy or lazily drafted claims can still be struck down for obviousness by the Federal Circuit afterward.
Summary: Greedy, Lazy Patents = Invalid
Craige reviews a case study of obviousness by tracing how common errors in lazy drafting and greedy claiming lead inexorably to weak patents. In Owens Corning v. Fast felt, the federal Circuit shoots down a patent on gravure deposited nail tabs for roof shingles, even though the claims survived the inter partes review process.
Questions? If you would like to get your patent questions answered and be part of the show, Thompson Patent Law has a LIVE complimentary webinar called Ask The Patent Attorney. Call the number below and reserve your spot in this LIVE teaching event.
