News & Analysis as of

Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Administrative Agency

Read Civil Procedure updates, alerts, news, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:

Unmet Garmin Factor 3 Proves Fatal for Additional Discovery Request

by Jones Day on

In Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a Patent Owner request for documents already provided in a co-pending lawsuit but restricted from use by a protective order....more

Supreme Court Grants Cert In SAS To Decide Required Scope Of PTAB Decision

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee, where it has been asked to decide whether the PTAB is statutorily required “to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged...more

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate...

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient...more

Written Description Lacking Where Nothing in the Specification Suggests Inventor Contemplated Claimed Invention

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, [2016-1143, 2016-1144](May 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part the Board’s decision in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,082. ...more

EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly

by Jones Day on

In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017. No....more

Is A Respondent’s Own Post-Importation Infringement A Violation Of Section 337?

by Jones Day on

Before 2011, the ITC routinely found violations of Section 337 based on the infringement of method claims through a respondent’s own use of an article post-importation. This changed when the ITC issued its Opinion in Certain...more

Patent Owner Statements During an IPR Disclaimed Claim Scope

In Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple, [2016-1599] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 on systems and methods for implementing digital home networks...more

Under the First-to-File Rule, District Court Stays Case Filed Hours After a Declaratory Judgment Action

Under the first-to-file rule (not to be confused with the provision from the America Invents Act), when two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal venues, the first-filed case is generally...more

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

In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more

Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Biscotti, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015, DI 191 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) that Microsoft should be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that...more

Amgen Sues Coherus Under BPCIA After Completing Patent Dance

On May 10, 2017, Amgen filed a complaint in the District of Delaware asserting that, under section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), Coherus infringed Amgen’s U.S....more

PTAB Grants Joinder of Time-Barred Petitioner to IPR after Settlement with Original Petitioner

The PTAB granted joinder of a time-barred petitioner to an IPR trial after the patent owner settled its dispute with the original petitioner in AT&T Services, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, IPR2017-01237, Paper 10...more

An Update on Patent Enforcement in China

As patent filing and grant numbers have skyrocketed in China, so has the attractiveness to settle patent infringement suits there. The opening of a series of specialized intellectual property courts, especially the courthouse...more

Are Inter Partes Review Proceedings Constitutional? The Federal Circuit Is Not Yet Ready To Decide

by Jones Day on

On May 11, 2017, with six of its twelve active judges authoring or joining separate opinions, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an initial hearing en banc which asked the full Court to address the question “whether a...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

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

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

Court Narrows Invalidity Case Through IPR Estoppel, but Federal Circuit’s Shaw Decision Keeps Some Arguments Alive

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) raised the possibility that the inter partes review (IPR) estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) might not do much...more

PTAB Provides Another Estoppel Datapoint — No Estoppel for Petitioner Using Its Own Documents

In Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) prevents the petitioner from challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR on any “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably...more

District Court Precludes Defendant from Asserting Invalidity Grounds That It Raised or Could Have Reasonably Raised in IPR...

On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more

Federal Circuit Maintains Pre-AIA Interpretation of the On-Sale Bar for Public Sales

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

Global Patent Prosecution Newsletter - April 2017

With the implementation of Revisions to the Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines on April 1, 2017, the April 2017 issue of Sterne Kessler's Global Patent Prosecution Newsletter includes information and practical tips for...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by Jones Day on

The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal. In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set...more

USPTO Director Grants Extension for Missed IPR Appeal to Federal Circuit

The USPTO Director granted a request to extend a missed deadline for an appeal of an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit due to the patent owner’s excusable neglect in Mitsubishi Cable Industr., Ltd. v. Goto Denshi Co., Ltd.,...more

Semicolons Strongly Indicate Each Step is Separate and Distinct; Confuse Most Non-Patent Lawyers

In In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1173] (May 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that §317(b) did not bar the reexamination and that the reexamined claims were invalid....more

716 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
Cybersecurity

Follow Civil Procedure 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.

Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!