News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

The PTAB Grants the University of Minnesota Sovereign Immunity but does not Terminate IPR

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB has again addressed sovereign immunity in the context of an IPR. Reactive Surfaces, LTD. petitioned for IPR of U.S. Patents No. 8,394,618 and 8,252,571. The ’618 and ’571 patents are co-owned by Toyota Motor...more

Are State-Owned Patents Immune From IPRs Under The Eleventh Amendment?

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In separate non-precedential decisions issued by three different panels, the PTAB has permitted state university patent owners to invoke the Eleventh Amendment in Inter Partes Review proceedings. Each panel found that IPR...more

STRONGER Patents Act of 2017 Likely Too Heavy Lift for Congress

by Orrick - NorCal IP Group on

It may be late July, but the impending Congressional recess has not lessened potential interest by lawmakers in patent reform. On June 21, 2017, Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) introduced Senate Bill 1390, entitled the...more

Instradent v. ITC: Federal Circuit Oral Argument Highlights Concerns Regarding Parallel ITC, IPR, and District Court Proceedings

On July 11, 2017, Federal Circuit Judges Prost, O’Malley, and Chen heard oral arguments in the appeal captioned Instradent USA, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2336 (Fed. Cir.), and, on July 19, 2017, issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming...more

Sandoz Files Two Petitions for IPR of Two AbbVie Patents Related to Humira

by Goodwin on

Sandoz has filed a petition for inter partes review of AbbVie’s U.S. Patent No. 8,802,100 (IPR2017-01823), which claims stable formulations of an anti-TNFa antibody identified in the petition as Humira® (adalimumab). Sandoz...more

Coherus Challenges One AbbVie Humira Patent In Four PTAB Proceedings

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

I’ve written previously about sequential PTAB challenges to the same patent, but the dispute between Coherus Biosciences Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. has engendered six Inter Partes Review proceedings against the same...more

Design Patents at the PTAB?

by Jones Day on

In the wake of the high-profile dispute in Apple v. Samsung, design patent procurement and enforcement activity has increased significantly. But practitioners may not appreciate that design patent validity can be attacked...more

PTAB Confirms Decision Denying Institution Based on District Court Action Ultimately Dismissed Without Prejudice

On July 6, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Ford Motor Company’s (“Petitioner”) request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of multiple inter partes reviews (IPR)...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – July 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through July 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 224 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 168 (75%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 22 (9.82%)...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Settlement 5 Days Before Final Written Decision Deadline Results in Termination Of IPR

by Knobbe Martens on

In an order issued in Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeco LLC, IPR2016-00407, IPR2016-00499, Paper 29 (P.TA.B. Jul. 5, 2017), the PTAB terminated the proceedings after the parties indicated that they had settled their...more

The STRONGER Patents Act: Swinging the Pendulum in Favor of Patent Owners

by Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

While the House Judiciary Committee conducts hearings today on "The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses," a movement is afoot in the Senate to revitalize the U.S. patent system. On June 21, 2017, a bipartisan group...more

The Federal Circuit Clarifies Notice Requirements in AIA Trials

In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., No. 2016-1984 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit faulted the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in an...more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...more

Pfizer Takes Aim at Herceptin® Patent at the PTAB

by Fish & Richardson on

Pfizer has shown its muscle in the biosimilars field, purchasing Hospira in 2015 and launching the second biosimilar on the U.S. market, Inflectra® (infliximab), a biosimilar of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade®. Pfizer is now...more

Federal Circuit Review - June 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Inter Partes Reexamination Estoppel Attaches On Claim-by-Claim Basis for New Requests and Pending Proceedings - In In re Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1092, 2016-1172, the Federal Circuit held that the...more

PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims

In IPCOM GmbH & Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation, and...more

PTAB Denies Motion to Withdraw as IPR Counsel

by Jones Day on

In an order entered June 30, 2017, the PTAB denied a motion by counsel for patent owner Purple Leaf, LLC (“Counsel”) to withdraw from representation in a trio of IPRs (IPR2016-01720, IPR2016-01721, and IPR2016-01722). Counsel...more

Method-of-Treatment Claims That Did Not Require a Specific Level of Efficacy Held Unpatentable as Obvious in Light Of References...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review determining Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 owned by Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd. unpatentable as obvious...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Developments in IPR Remands from the Federal Circuit During the First Half of 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Previously, we reported the outcomes of remands from the Federal Circuit to the PTAB in IPR cases through 2016.... This note is an update to that report, surveying the outcomes and status of remands to the PTAB in the...more

Known Solution to General Problem Provides Sufficient Motivation to Modify Prior Art

by Jones Day on

In a final written decision in Bass, et al., v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (IPR2016-00254), the PTAB found that the challenged claims of Fresenius’s U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010, directed to a sterile pharmaceutical composition of...more

Does IPR Extinguish Private Property Rights?

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to decide whether only Art. III federal courts, not executive branch tribunals such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), can decide whether a patent is...more

PTAB Discretion, Petitions Reliant on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In three recent cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressed arguments pertaining to when and how it should exercise its discretion to deny some or all grounds for unpatentability in an inter partes review (IPR)...more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July 2017

This appeal arises from a Northern District of Illinois decision dismissing Nalco’s infringement complaint with prejudice and denying its motion for reconsideration. Nalco argues that the law does not require pleading all...more

1,797 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 72
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.