News & Analysis as of

Administrative Agency Civil Procedure Intellectual Property

Read need-to-know updates, commentary, and analysis on Administrative Agency issues written by leading professionals.

The PTAB Reaches Same Determination After Remand Despite Having Construction and Analysis Set Aside

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR after the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. On remand, the PTAB reached the same...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more

District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

by Jones Day on

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more

Changes to PTAB Practice Proposed by STRONGER Patents Act of 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group led by Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and co-sponsored...more

Commission Overturns Summary Determination in Optical Fibers Investigation

by Jones Day on

In an earlier post, we summarized ALJ McNamara’s recent Summary Determination in Certain UV Curable Coatings For Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Order No. 33 (July 6,...more

Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – July 2017

by Fish & Richardson on

This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases. In July 2017, there were three notable decisions for...more

Assignor Estoppel is Not a Defense in Inter Partes Reviews

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated as “precedential” a PTAB opinion issued in 2013 finding that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in inter partes review proceedings (“IPR”). ...more

PTAB Designates Portion Of Assignor Estoppel Opinion As Precedential

by Jones Day on

In October 2016, we posted about a Federal Circuit decision addressing whether assignor estoppel bars a party from filing an inter partes review petition. In Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., the...more

Board Was Mixed Up Over Blender Patent

In Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., [2016-1511] (August 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that Whirlpool’s U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 relating to a household blender was not...more

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

Indefiniteness Dooms Patent Claims on Summary Determination

by Jones Day on

Dispositive summary judgment in district court patent cases is somewhat common, but similar early dispositions of Section 337 investigations in the ITC are rare in comparison. One such outcome happened recently in Certain UV...more

PTAB Designates As Precedential A Decision Finding Assignor Estoppel Is Not A Defense in IPRs

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB recently designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in IPR proceedings in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290,...more

Can Unexpected Results Make the Obvious Non-Obvious?

In Honeywell, Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., [16-1996] (August 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the USTPO’s reexamination decision invalidating claims 1–26, 31–37, 46–49, 58, 59, 61–68, 70–75, 80, and 81 of...more

Hutchinson Revisited Surname + Merely Descriptive Term May or May Not Be Registrable

In Earnhardt v. Kerry Earhhardt, Inc., [2016-1939] (July 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a TTAB decision dismissing Earnhardt’s opposition because it found that there was no likelihood of confusion between...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Honeywell v. Mexichem the Circuit vacates a Board determination of obviousness, ruling that the Board improperly relied on inherency, appeared to shift the burden of nonobviousness to the patentee, and violated the APA by...more

Federal Circuit Finds Regeneron Transgenic Mouse Patent Invalid For Inequitable Conduct With Intent Inferred From Litigation...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a 38 page decision with a 19 page dissent by Judge Newman, the Federal Circuit determined that Regeneron’s transgenic mouse patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The decision was rendered in Regeneron...more

Remand Where PTAB Decision Does Not Explain Reasoning, Account for All Evidence

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In reviewing a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) deciding three interferences involving competing claims directed to testing methods for fetal aneuploidies, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

“Weight” a Minute – Those Claims Are Indefinite!

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

Order No. 33, Initial Determination Granting MUV’s Motion for Summary Determination That Claims 16-18, 21, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,076,659 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Certain UV Curable Coatings For Optical Fibers,...more

If You Need a Second Bite at the IPR Apple, Take It Quickly

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision denying a second petition for inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) elucidated the factors weighing against granting the petitioner’s request. The decision underscores the PTAB’s...more

PTAB Grants Rare Motion To Amend Patent Claim After Federal Circuit Remand

by Jones Day on

Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more

Skky Found the Limit for “Means” Terms

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err in its conclusions that a claim element reciting “means” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 and that the challenged claims...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Regeneron v. Merus, a divided panel affirms a determination of unenforceability for violation of the duty of disclosure. What is interesting about the case is that neither the district court nor the majority reviewed...more

Karma’s a ^$#*! – Sanction for Litigation Misconduct Results in Finding of Intent to Deceive the USPTO

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V., [2016-1346] (July 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed final judgment that U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018 (which related to using large DNA vectors to target and modify...more

Standard for Claim Indefiniteness Virtually Relaxes

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing claim indefiniteness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim term “virtually free from interference” was sufficiently definite to pass § 112 muster. One-E-Way, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,...more

791 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 32
Cybersecurity

Follow Administrative Agency Updates on:

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.