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
FANDUEL, INC. v. INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC - Before Dyk, Moore, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if it institutes trial...more
A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more
On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require a single entity to perform, direct, or control all of the steps of a patented process for infringement liability to arise from...more
In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more
DuPont petitioned for inter partes review of Synvina’s patent, which was directed to a method of oxidizing a chemical using a specific temperature range, pressure range, catalyst, and solvent. The prior art disclosed the...more
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit has broadened the potential for declaratory judgment personal jurisdiction to exist based on letters sent to accused patent infringers in a foreign forum. In Jack Henry & Associates,...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
On 4 January 2019, China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) released draft amendments to the Chinese patent law for public comments (English translation available upon request), proposing, among other issues... ...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
A recent Federal Circuit decision (DuPont v. Synvina) addressed two key issues in PTAB proceedings: burden shifting and standing to appeal....more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Assertions of obviousness based on prior art references in combination with “routine optimization” by one skilled in the art are common in the chemical and biological fields. The Federal Circuit recently addressed this issue...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,921 (the “’921 Patent”) were not shown to be obvious, finding that the PTAB applied the...more
The Federal Circuit issued the fifth precedential decision involving the one year time-bar 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) since the issue became reviewable earlier this year in the wake of Wi-Fi One....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) In a reissued, slightly altered version of a July 3, 2018 decision,...more
Any person or entity may file an IPR proceeding to invalidate a patent, regardless of whether it faces a specific threat of infringement. An adverse decision in an IPR proceeding is appealable only to the Federal Circuit....more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: When the ranges identified in a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB may initially accept an IPR petitioner’s identification of real-parties-in-interest, but...more
On June 1, 2018, the PTAB announced new guidance on motions to amend in AIA trials. In view of the decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290...more
As first discussed with the 50+ participants at the inaugural Global IP Strategy Conference held at our firm’s offices on Friday March 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit’s October en banc decision in Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal...more
In China, most damages awarded in patent cases are statutory in nature despite the availability of additional options of calculating damages including losses by the plaintiff, profits obtained by the defendant, or where a...more
In prior blog posts, we have commented on PTAB decisions terminating IPR proceedings due to the Petitioner’s failure to identify all real parties-in-interest. See blog posts on Sanction For Failing to Update Real Party In...more
On February 5, 2018, the PTO filed a petition for rehearing of Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol’ns, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 22, 2017). The petition asks the panel “not . . . to alter its judgment, but only to...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