The EU Unified Patent Court (UPC) announced a launch date of April 1, 2023, however, the announced date should be regarded as a statement of intent for it could change. The launch timing has been the subject of various delays...more
In a second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, after the Court affirmed a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on “bad faith” non-disclosure of statutory bar prior sales on the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the minimum contacts or purposeful availment test for specific personal jurisdiction was satisfied where a patent owner sent multiple infringement notice letters...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now vacated its prior ruling finding induced infringement based on so-called skinny labeling on a pharmaceutical product. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...more
2/25/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inducement ,
Intent ,
Labeling ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
6/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Addressing the scope of review of the PTAB’s application of the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an IPR proceeding, the US Supreme Court held that the PTAB’s application of the time bar...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more
11/4/2019
/ Appeals ,
Chevron Deference ,
Final Action ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patents ,
Request for Continued Examination ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
The Supreme Court of the United States, brushing aside the position taken by the US Patent and Trademark Office as to the suitability of this case as a vehicle for review, agreed to consider whether a petition for an America...more
7/9/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Voluntary Dismissals
The US Supreme Court has now held that a federal agency is not a “person” under the America Invents Act (AIA). Therefore, a federal agency cannot be a petitioner seeking review under the various AIA patent review procedures....more
6/13/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
America Invents Act ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Government Entities ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
SCOTUS
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness over a patent owner’s challenge to the “combination” of prior art, explaining that no motivation to combine...more
In its third ruling in an ongoing patent dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a grant of summary judgment barring an infringement action under the principle of collateral estoppel was legal...more
In addressing whether a claim construction adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) “changed theories midstream,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s construction—and its...more
The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance claim for a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, addressing the...more
Addressing whether the review of a single claim on a single challenged ground in a petition may be sufficient to institute inter partes review (IPR) for all challenged claims on all challenged grounds, the Patent Trial and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a motion for remand, finding that a party did not waive SAS-based relief when it requested reconsideration of non-instituted claims shortly after the issuance of the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an award of enhanced damages even while affirming a jury finding of willfulness (based on substantial evidence), explaining that the award was not adequately explained...more
In light of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
8/29/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an inter partes review (IPR) determination that challenged claims were not obvious over two references asserted in requestor’s IPR petition without consideration of other...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that, post-SAS, it possessed jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) even where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in limiting its...more
The per curiam US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied petitioners’ requests for en banc review in the Berkheimer and Aatrix Software, Inc., cases, holding that the issue of whether a claim element is well...more
Addressing whether either of two previously filed district court actions precluded institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding under the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Addressing the issues of priority and incorporation by reference, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) prior art rejection of a patent based on the priority date...more
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that once the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes an inter partes review...more
In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court reversed a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that once the Patent Trial & Appeal Board of US Patent & Trademark Office (PTAB or Board) institutes an...more
In the continuing tug-of-war between antitrust and intellectual property, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit transferred a Walker Process claim to the Fifth Circuit for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Xitronix...more