News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Administrative Agency Civil Procedure

Read Intellectual Property Law updates, alerts, news, and legal analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:

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

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

In Nichia the Circuit affirms the denial of a permanent injunction because Nichia failed to prove irreparable injury. In RecogniCorp the panel throws out as not being directed to patentable subject matter claims directed to...more

Estoppel Under 317(b) Always Applies on a Claim by Claim Basis, Just Like the Statute Says

In In Re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1092, 2016-1172] (May 5, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s affirmance of a reexamination determination that all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 was invalid....more

Will Courts Consider Evidence of Patent Eligibility?

Patent enforcement by Texas-based DataTreasury Corp. (“DataTreasury”) was a key motivation for the creation of Covered Business Method Review (“CBM”) proceedings. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, referring to...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Board’s Understanding of Prior Art

The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by...more

ALJ Finds ITC Remedial Orders Unenforceable

by Jones Day on

We previously wrote about the uphill battle Respondent Eko Brands faced in an enforcement proceeding after it defaulted in the underlying investigation. The ALJ found during the proceedings that res judicata barred its...more

ITC Declassifies Portions of Final Determination

by Jones Day on

In re Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944 (ITC Comm’n Apr. 19, 2017), is a surprisingly rare opinion addressing a common issue: When should the ITC redact a portion of an...more

710 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
Cybersecurity

Follow Intellectual Property 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!