Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Interactive Games’ patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and found all but dependent claim 6 to be unpatentable as obvious. ...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
This week’s case of the week deals with issues relating to obviousness and standing in a consolidated appeal of two final written decisions issued in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
IPR Petitioner’s Initial Identification of the Real Parties in Interest Is to Be Accepted Unless and Until Disputed by a Patent Owner - In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583, the Federal...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moore, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB is entitled to weigh the credibility of expert witnesses, and attorney argument cannot be...more
Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gets most of its attention (judicial and otherwise) regarding its decisions in inter partes review and covered business method proceedings. But the Board also has responsibility for...more
In a split decision with Judge Lourie dissenting, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness rejection that had been affirmed in an ex parte appeal to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The decision was rendered in In...more
In Nidec v. Zhongshan, the entire panel affirms a determination of obviousness but two judges question whether § 315(c) of the AIA was improperly used to permit joinder as to a second Zhongshan petition filed after the...more
Federal Circuit Affirms Different Invalidity Results at PTAB and District Court - In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-1678, 2016-1679, the Federal Circuit held that prior judicial opinions...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more
Reaffirming the petitioner’s burden of proof codified in 35 USC § 316(e), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) finding the patent owner’s...more
McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more
The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more