News & Analysis as of

Appeals Patents

Why The Federal Circuit Revisited Written Description

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Fed Cir. No 2015-2011, June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded interference decisions on the ground the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)...more

PTAB Confirms Decision Denying Institution Based on District Court Action Ultimately Dismissed Without Prejudice

On July 6, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Ford Motor Company’s (“Petitioner”) request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of multiple inter partes reviews (IPR)...more

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

The Circuit issued a single precedential patent decision this week – the Genband v. Metaswitch case where the Circuit vacated the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction out of concern that the district court applied...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – July 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through July 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 224 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 168 (75%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 22 (9.82%)...more

Lack of Clarity for Reason for Denying Permanent Injunction Results in Remand

In Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., [2017-1148] (July 1-, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of a permanent injunction and remanded for reconsideration....more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...more

Federal Circuit Review - June 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Inter Partes Reexamination Estoppel Attaches On Claim-by-Claim Basis for New Requests and Pending Proceedings - In In re Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1092, 2016-1172, the Federal Circuit held that the...more

PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims

In IPCOM GmbH & Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation, and...more

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

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Weak Infringement Position Makes Troll-like Behavior Exceptional

In Adjustacam LLC v. Newegg, Inc., [2016-1882] (July 5, 2017) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision not to award attorneys’ fees to defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissing its complaint after a...more

Developments in IPR Remands from the Federal Circuit During the First Half of 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Previously, we reported the outcomes of remands from the Federal Circuit to the PTAB in IPR cases through 2016.... This note is an update to that report, surveying the outcomes and status of remands to the PTAB in the...more

Italian time-machine : Limitation of the duration of an SPC may be decided by the Italian Patent Office

by Hogan Lovells on

The Board of Appeal of the Italian Patent Office (Commissione dei Ricorsi), by decision published on June 26, 2017, acknowledged the right of the patent holder to ask the Italian Patent Office for the limitation of the...more

Written Description Must Support Claims; Not Exclude Alternatives

In The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2015-2011] (June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s determination in an interference that Stanford’s...more

Easyweb v. Twitter and the Rise of the Non-Precedential Opinion

by Knobbe Martens on

In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims at issue in Easyweb Innovations, LLC. v. Twitter, Inc. (“Easyweb”) were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter....more

Senate’s STRONGER Patents Act Aims to Address Key PTAB Patent Owner Woes

by Jones Day on

On June 21, Senators Chris Coons (D-Del), Tom Cotton (R-Ark), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), and Mazie Hironoa (D-Hawaii) introduced the “Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of...more

Federal Circuit Denies Motion to Stay Pending Supreme Court Decision in Oil States

by Jones Day on

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) violates the Constitution by extinguishing patent rights...more

Attempt to Set Aside Judgment Yields Exceptional Case Award

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to the prevailing defendant in a suit brought in equity seeking to have a patent infringement...more

Written Description Too Attenuated for Patentability: Claims Lack Support

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) final determination in an inter partes re-examination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that some claims were supported...more

Win or Lose: Appellants of PTO Decisions in District Court Must Pay Attorneys' Fees

by Jones Day on

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held in NantKwest v. Matal that patent applicants seeking review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the district court must pay the PTO's legal...more

USPTO Can Receive Its Attorneys’ Fees for Applicant Appeals to District Court

In NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the USPTO’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the “expenses” authorized under 35 U.S.C....more

Paying for Attorneys' Fees Whether you Win or Lose on Appeals from the PTAB

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that a party appealing a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) by bringing a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office...more

Does Amgen Have Viable State Law Claims Against Sandoz Arising From The Zarxio Biosimilar Patent Dispute?

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (which you can read more about here), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) sets forth the exclusive federal remedy for failing to provide a copy of the biosimilar application to the...more

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Securing Financing Patent Ineligible

by Knobbe Martens on

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in a covered business method review proceeding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807 for providing...more

Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on PTAB Final Written Decision For Procedural APA Violation

In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant...more

Rx IP Update - June 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Supreme Court of Canada News - SCC denies Apotex leave to appeal omeprazole infringement decision. On June 1, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed Apotex’s application for leave to appeal (docket no. 37478) the Federal Court...more

781 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 32
Cybersecurity

"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.