Exploring Procedural Justice | Judge Steve Leben | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Handling Post-Conviction Death Penalty Cases Pro Bono | McKenzie Edwards | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Inside the Fourth Court of Appeals’ Clerk’s Office | Michael Cruz | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supersedeas and Other Recent Rule Changes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supreme Court Miniseries: Tribal Rights in the 21st Century
SDNY Chooses “Time Approach” to Calculating Lease Termination Damages Collectible Against a Bankrupt Estate
AGG Talks: Home Health & Hospice - Reimbursement Audits and Appeals
After ALJ: Options and Opportunities in the Face of an Unfavorable ALJ Decision
Understanding the SCOTUS Shadow Docket | Steve Vladeck | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone - Diagnosing Health Care
Checking in On the 88th Texas Legislature | Jerry Bullard | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Law Brief®: Rich Schoenstein and New York State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Discuss The Chief Judge Controversy
Appellate Justice for Domestic Violence Survivors
Jury Charges and Oral Argument | David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Evolution of Texas Appellate Practice| David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: California Employment News - Time to Do Away With Rounding Policies
Two Federal Courts Deal Blow to Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Program: A Close Look at the Decisions
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
An Inside Look as a Juror - FCRA Focus Podcast
Reflections on 100 Episodes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more
On August 26, in Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner lacked standing to appeal an inter partes review (IPR) decision as to a claim the patent owner had previously...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a portion of an appeal from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) regarding obviousness because the patentee did not have standing to challenge the decision...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) did not err in finding that a petitioner was estopped from maintaining a third inter partes review (IPR) of a patent claim...more
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in the context of an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) decision, that the appellant had Article III standing and affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board)...more
MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more
The Federal Circuit has provided additional guidance about an appellant’s standing to appeal IPR decisions after settling the related litigations and entering into patent license agreements. In its second decision between...more
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeal Nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) - Our Case of the Week this week focuses on the written description requirement when the patent claims a range. The...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more
On November 10, in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, for the second time, and in a 2-1 decision by a different panel, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal final decisions in inter partes review...more
APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more
Claims added or amended during inter partes review (“IPR”) do not become part of a patent until the Patent Office officially says so by issuing an IPR certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). The patentee needs more than a Final...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm. Background - Qualcomm sued...more
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2021) The Federal Circuit issued a single precedential patent case this week—a modified version of a non-precedential order issued February...more
MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC. Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The purchaser or assignee of all assets and interests of the requester of inter...more
Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions. This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III—always a fun topic. Below we provide our usual...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC. Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more
Last week, the Federal Circuit had the occasion to address anew the requirements for standing to appeal an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding under Article III of the...more