A Judicial Perspective on Using Technology at Oral Argument | Judge John Owens | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sparked debate following a recent ruling on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) application of estoppel provisions in invalidating amended claims in inter partes...more
In In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a later-expiring patent can be invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in view of an earlier-expiring,...more
On Tuesday, the en banc Federal Circuit released its highly anticipated decision in LKQ v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, rejecting as “improperly rigid” the previous standard for evaluating whether a design patent is...more
The Federal Circuit has overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to evaluate obviousness of design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Op. LLC, No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024). The court, which...more
In a recent en banc panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled a decades-old test for obviousness of design patents. Reasoning that the old test was “improperly rigid,” the Federal Circuit...more
An en banc panel of the Federal Circuit recently heard arguments in a case that could change how courts assess design patents for “obviousness.” LKQ Corporation and GM Global Technology Operations LLC are engaged in a...more
In 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued three opinions regarding U.S. design patents. The three 2023 opinions are Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., LKQ...more
Changes to design patent validity law may be coming thanks to LKQ v. GM, a case that we’ve been tracking since April 2021. On February 5, 2024, in a rare en banc hearing, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked...more
LKQ filed an inter partes review challenging GM’s auto fender design patent. LKQ was once a licensed repair part vendor for GM. But, after renewal negotiations fell through in early 2022, GM informed LKQ that the parts LKQ...more
The Federal Circuit denied Cellect, LLC's petition for rehearing en banc of the In re Cellect case, which held that the expiration of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes is the expiration date...more
LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations, LLC, Case No. 21-2348 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, June 30, 2023) - The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit decided to consider, en banc, whether the Supreme Court’s 2007 KSR decision regarding obviousness overruled the Federal Circuit’s decades-old Rosen and Durling tests for design patents, setting...more
Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A., Appeal No. 2022-1165 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit upheld an application by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of its Pilot Program...more
On March 16, 2022, the Federal Circuit denied Biogen’s petition for rehearing of its November 2021 decision in Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 18 F.4th 1333, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which found that Biogen’s patent...more
BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonw. Scientific and Indus. Research Org., Appeal Nos. 2020-1415, -1416, -1919, -1920 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) - Our Case of the Week, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern...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
Whether you are pursuing patents on your new technology, thinking about bringing patent infringement litigation or defending patent infringement claims in court, knowing the important developments in patent law will help you...more
The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept....more
What comes to mind when you think of “hot topics” in patent law? Subject matter eligibility? Obviousness? Damages? Quietly, administrative law has moved to the top of the list of issues that consume the attention of the Court...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week a Federal Circuit panel in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC issued an important decision regarding inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on two questions concerning contingent motions to...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly...more
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc filed in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a decision which found the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) unconstitutional under the...more