News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Novartis AG, LTS et al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Prior Judicial Opinions Don’t Bind the PTAB

After Novartis’ patents were found nonobvious by the Fed. Cir., affirming the Delaware District Court, defendant Noven filed for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6316023 and 6335031, on rivastigmine and an...more

IPR Estoppel: Ripe for Gamesmanship?

In Douglas Dynamics LLC, v. Meyer Products LLC, [14-cv-886-jdp] (D. Wisc. Document # 68 April 18. 2017), the district court considered the scope of estoppel after an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The Court identified three...more

PTAB Weighs Five Factors in Discretionary Denial of Xactware’s Second IPR Petition

The PTAB weighed five factors in its discretionary denial of a second IPR petition filed by the same petitioner in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Tech., Inc., IPR2017-00034, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. April 13, 2017)....more

SAS Urges High Court to Restore Balance to AIA Post-Grant Framework

by Jones Day on

Who makes the country’s patent laws—Congress, or the Patent Office? A recent petition for certiorari filed by SAS Institute, Inc.—represented by a team of Jones Day lawyers—asks the Supreme Court to decide that question in...more

Federal Circuit Reverses-in-Part PTAB’s IPR Decisions for Wasica’s Tire Pressure Monitoring Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more

Different Burdens of Proof and Different Records Allowed Different Conclusions on Validity by the PTAB and District Court

In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 16-1678, -1679 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding obvious certain patents that were previously found nonobvious in district...more

"Strategies for Litigants in Patent Infringement Cases Using Motions to Dismiss Post-Alice"

Nearly three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The decision, which ushered in an unprecedented wave of cases invalidating...more

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obviousness Holding for Novartis’s Dementia Drug Patents

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

USPTO Launches PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative

On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced it has launched an initiative to develop ways to improve Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, particularly inter partes review proceedings....more

PTAB Denies Institution of Petitioner’s Second IPR Based on Newly Cited Prior Art Because Petitioner Knew of the Prior Art Before...

On March 20, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of patent claims that were also the subject of a previously filed IPR by the same petitioner (IBM). IBM...more

Antedating References at PTAB: Trends and Pitfalls

Patent owners generally face unfavorable odds in attempting to antedate references in America Invents Act trials, including inter partes review proceedings. Oftentimes, Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions concerning...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – April 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through April 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 185 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 142 (76.76%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 16 (8.65%)...more

Can PTAB Decision Not to Institute IPR Tank Invalidity Defense In ITC?

by Jones Day on

Judge McNamara determined to reopen the record after the hearing and take judicial notice of two PTAB decisions denying institution of IPR challenges of the asserted patents in Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials...more

USPTO Seeking Potential Reforms to PTAB Proceedings

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On April 7, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced its PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) proceedings created under the America Invents Act (“AIA”) have been in...more

Ericsson Tests Scope of the PTAB’s Sovereign Immunity Holding

On January 25, 2017, a panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that “Eleventh Amendment Immunity bars the institution of an inter partes review against an unconsenting state that has not waived sovereign...more

Aragen Bioscience Files Three Petitions for IPR on Cell-Line Patents

by Goodwin on

Aragen Bioscience, Inc. and Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. have filed three petitions for IPR of Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.’s patents: IPR2017-01262 on U.S. Patent 7,425,446; IPR2017-01252 on U.S. Patent 6,946,292;...more

Are the Tides Turning for Motions to Amend Claims in IPR Proceedings?

by Weintraub Tobin on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has rarely allowed patent owners to replace or modify claims during inter partes review (“IPR”), covered business method review, or post-grant review. In fact, in April 2016 the...more

Anticipation Law Does Not Permit Finding Missing Claim Elements Based Only on Artisans “Immediately Envisioning Them”

The recent Federal Circuit decision, Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. et al., No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017), explained the anticipation teachings of earlier precedent and unanimously...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2017

by WilmerHale on

Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent. All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification,...more

Evidence of Priority to Provisional Application and that Prior Art Was Not Work of Another Defeated Obviousness Challenge in IPR

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more

Beware Of Relying on Your Confidential Information

by Jones Day on

If you are involved in an IPR and you are contemplating whether to rely on your own confidential information as part of a filing, you need to consider the risk that the Board will deny your motion to file under seal because...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part IV

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00778; filed January 26,...more

PTAB Not Bound By Prior Court Decisions Upholding Exelon Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Novartis v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating certain claims of two Orange Book-listed Exelon patents. This decision has...more

Federal Circuit Holds that the PTAB and District Courts May Reach Different Conclusions

Recently, the Federal Circuit confirmed that it is permissible for the district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reach different conclusions on the validity of challenged patents, even when presented...more

Courts' Findings of No Invalidity Are Not Binding on the Patent Office in Inter Partes Reviews

The US Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit issued an important decision last week regarding the interplay of court litigation and inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the US Patent and Trademark Appeals Board (PTAB) on the issue...more

1,601 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 65
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!