This issue of The PTAB Review begins by providing an analysis of how institution decisions consider declaration testimony submitted by a patent owner. Next, it summarizes proposed rulemaking from the United States Patent and...more
The firm's post-grant practice is pleased to present its 2020 PTAB Year in Review. The publication begins with a review of 2020 petition filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and takes a closer look at the...more
In this edition, we discuss an update on the Arthrex Appointments Clause decision. We examine the continuing demise of same-party joinder and deference to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) precedential decisions, and the...more
On September 10, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided key motions in Interference No. 106,115, University of California v. Broad Institute. The interference involves 10 patent applications of the University...more
On May 18, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) heard argument in Interference No. 106,115, University of California1 v. Broad Institute2. The interference involves 10 patent applications of University of California...more
The America Invents Act (AIA) authorizes the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to cancel patent claims that never should have been issued but prohibits the PTAB from acting on petitions for review brought more than one...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
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided whether tribal sovereign immunity required termination of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). At the PTAB, Mylan...more
7/25/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Allergan Inc ,
Appeals ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP Assignment Agreements ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Tribal Governments
Judicial review of post-grant patent proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is limited, but a federal court of appeals has somewhat loosened the restriction. On January 8, 2018, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom...more
1/11/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadcom ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO
On January 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc. dismissing an appeal by a petitioner from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for lack of...more
On June 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider two questions....more
On July 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its holding in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 2015-1499 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit's decision is the latest development in the long-running...more
7/24/2015
/ Appeals ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Counterclaims ,
Disclosure ,
First Impression ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Notice Provisions ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
Unfair Competition
On July 8, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, split 6-5, denied rehearing of its earlier decision, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015), in which the court upheld the use...more
On February 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its first opinion in an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA). In In re Cuozzo...more