Inter Partes Review Proceedings

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

A Different Route: Challenging Orange Book Patents Via Inter Partes Review

Since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2012, and the corresponding implementation of the inter partes review (IPR) process, patent challengers have been utilizing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as an...more

Patent Due Diligence and Evaluation After the AIA

Many factors must be considered for due diligence and valuation of a patent portfolio. The patent owner’s desire to have broad claims that capture a large number of infringements must be tempered against its need for claims...more

Supreme Court 2015-2016 Intellectual Property Case Review

At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2015 term came to a close. The Court issued written decisions in three intellectual property cases during that term, the same number of cases as during the previous term,...more

No Good Cause? No Amendment

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions, MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., Case No. 14-cv-03657 (Judge Susan Illston) - In the Northern District of California,...more

IPR Tracker: IPR2016-00408 & IPR2016-00409 (U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135) (Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GMBH) – IPRs Instituted

The Board has instituted IPR2016-00408 and IPR2016-00409 on AbbVie Biotechnology’s U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135, which covers methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis with a human anti-tumor necrosis factor a antibody. This...more

IPR Tracker: IPR2016-01373 (U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415) (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) (Cabilly II Patent) – Petition for IPR

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. has filed an IPR petition on U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415. This patent has been challenged several times over the past year with mixed results: IPR2015-01624 (instituted); IPR2016-00383 (not...more

Status Quo At The PTAB For Now: Supreme Court Makes No Changes to IPR Practice

Recently, the Supreme Court declined to make any changes to IPR procedure in its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). Relying primarily on statutory language and concepts of agency rulemaking...more

Hot Topics: AIA Estoppel Provisions Clarified

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., has shed some light on the estoppel provisions in America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings. Like the estoppels in...more

Intellectual Property Law - July 2016

Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo - Why it matters: On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes...more

Perspectives On The PTAB - Inaugural Issue

We are pleased to share this Perspectives on the PTAB newsletter. Its content is directed toward providing information and analysis of the decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We hope that this newsletter...more

PTAB Provides Procedural Guidance, Designates Five Opinions as Precedential

On May 10, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) designated five post-grant trial decisions as precedential, bring the total number of precedential decisions in inter partes review (IPR) and covered business...more

Burden on Motion to Amend in IPR

Applying its own precedent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the burden remains on the patent owner to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims over the art of record in an inter partes...more

PTAB Grants Late Motion to Amend, But Amended Claims Fail to Breathe Life into Patent

Addressing the standards for a motion to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted a motion to amend the claims in an IPR, but ultimately denied...more

Supreme Court’s Cuozzo Decision Endorses AIA Trial Proceedings, But Preserves Key Roles for both the PTAB and Federal Courts in...

In Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,[i] the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the patent owner’s challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act’s new post grant proceedings....more

Supreme Court Decides Two Key Aspects of IPR in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more

Inter Partes Review Institution Decisions Not Appealable, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Remains Standard

In Depth - The Supreme Court of the United States (Justice Breyer writing for the majority) affirmed a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision barring judicial review of most decisions regarding institution...more

Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the...

The Supreme Court’s decision will not likely change much in the near term — especially in light of the fact that it made no express changes to PTO procedure for and regulations governing IPR. Last week, the U.S. Supreme...more

PTAB Can Rely Upon Prior Art Not Cited in an IPR Institution Decision to Establish the State of Art

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final determination in Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited Partnership v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., Nos. 2015-1720, 2015-1721 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016), holding that the PTAB did...more

Busy Supreme Court Docket In Intellectual Property Highlighted By Cases On Enhanced Damages, Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction...

In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics (14-1513), in which it addressed the Federal Circuit's test for determining whether enhanced damages should be awarded for...more

Federal Circuit Distinguishes “Motivation to Combine” from “Expectation of Success” for Obviousness Purposes

Addressing issues of obviousness and the proper scope of inter partes review (IPR) reply briefs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) IPR decision finding the...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - June 2016

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more

Supreme Court Update: Rjr Nabisco, Inc. V. European Community (15-138), Encino Motorcars, Llc V. Navarro (14-415), Kingdomware...

Having cleared some near-blockbusters off the table on Friday (everything's relative this term), we've still got an eight-case backlog to get through before the final decision day of OT15 on Monday. Since we've got an even...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2016

The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more

Renewed Motion To Stay Pending IPR Is Denied

Most of the claims at issue will not be at issue in the IPR proceeding which weighs against a stay. This motion was filed when the case was in its early stages. While some progress has been made, a Markman hearing is still...more

1,224 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 49
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×