Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue vs. Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Petitions for Expungement or Reexamination of the Trademark Modernization Act
Four subjects stood out in patent litigation in Texas in April 2023: (1) applicability of the customer-suit exception to the first-to-file rule; (2) the level of ties a reasonable royalty methodology must have to the facts of...more
This case was the second opinion in a patent dispute saga between two poultry processing competitors over patented poultry chilling technology. See John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., 887 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir....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
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was passed as part of health reform signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This year, the BPCIA turns 10. While the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway has...more
It has been nearly 10 years since the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act) was enacted. The first biosimilar product in U.S. history was approved and launched in 2015. Ten biosimilars...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the retroactive...more
In Apple v. IXI IP, the PTAB affirmed that the issuance of a reexamination certificate adding additional claims to a challenged patent does not reset the one-year time bar under § 315(b) to file a petition for inter partes...more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
Canada has historically been a much less active jurisdiction for patent litigation compared to the United States, which can be explained in part by the simple fact that the United States’ market is almost 10 times the size of...more
Improperly Drafted Employment Agreement Leads to Dismissal of Patent Case Due to Lack of Standing - In Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al., Appeal Nos. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311, the Federal...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
The Supreme Court is taking another patent case, granting certiorari in WesternGeco v. Ion. A divided panel of the Circuit had ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits as a result of the sale of components of...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Wallach, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Summary: Reexaminations of patents confirming validity are not dispositive of...more
In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more
This week the ITC stood firm in its position that final PTAB rulings of unpatentability in IPR proceedings are not grounds to modify, suspend, or rescind remedial orders. In Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, the ITC...more
Today the Circuit agreed to hear en banc Nantkwest v. Matal,in which the panel had reversed a district court decision that had rejected the PTO’s position that applicants who appeal a district court must pay the PTO’s legal...more
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal [Order rehearing en banc] (No. 2016-1794, 8/31/17) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Hughes, Stoll) - Per Curiam. Sua sponte vacating panel opinion, ordering...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained...more
Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more