News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Knobbe Martens

Finding Common Ground? — Federal Circuit Clarifies IPR Estoppel

Knobbe Martens on

INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...more

Knobbe Martens

No Injury, No Appeal: Patent Owners Must Show Actual Injury for Article III Standing

Knobbe Martens on

DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC - Before Moore, Clevenger and Chen.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review...more

Venable LLP

Sarepta Files Two IPRs Against Genzyme’s Patents Gene Therapy Elevidys® Allegedly Infringes

Venable LLP on

On June 26, 2025, Sarepta Therapeutics filed IPR2025-01194, challenging as obvious claims 3-6 of Genzyme’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,542 (“the ’542 patent), and IPR2025-01195 challenging claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No....more

Knobbe Martens

Speculative Plans Are Insufficient to Establish Standing in PTAB Appeals

Knobbe Martens on

INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. - Before Moore, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Speculative plans for potentially infringing activity are insufficient to...more

Knobbe Martens

Keeping PACE With CRISPR

Knobbe Martens on

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Newest Discretionary Denials on Settled Expectations - Best Practices for Petitioners and Patent Owners

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a series of discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) petitions, based on a new factor, the “settled expectations” of the Patent Owner....more

Jones Day

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

Jones Day on

A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more

McDermott Will & Emery

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion

McDermott Will & Emery on

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: RPI Arguments Must First Be Raised at the PTAB

Jones Day on

Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more

Venable LLP

Samsung Bioepis and Formycon’s EYLEA® IPRs Discretionarily Denied Institution Among Wave of Fintiv Denials; Regeneron Files Second...

Venable LLP on

On June 2, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued decisions denying institution of Samsung Bioepis’s IPR2025-00176 and Formycon’s IPR2025-00233 against claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, 20, 22–36, 39–42, 44, 45, and...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled

Fish & Richardson on

On June 18, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Stewart issued a discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, granting the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending June 20, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1674, -1701 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 16, 2025). Per curiam opinion, before Louri, Reyna, and Hughes. Ancora owns a patent directed to restricting unauthorized use of...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

U.S. IP Update – June 2025

Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Reinforces Standard for Prior Art Enablement in CRISPR Dispute

White & Case LLP on

On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more

Jones Day

USPTO Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on "Settled Expectations"

Jones Day on

Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more

Irwin IP LLP

No Rhythm, No Review: USPTO Director Skips a Beat on IPRs. 

Irwin IP LLP on

iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1904, -1925 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a jury decision awarding...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Nexus Standard For Secondary Consideration Licensing Evidence

A&O Shearman on

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found several claims of Ancora Technologies,...more

Baker Donelson

Insights from Month One of Acting Director Stewart's Decisions on Discretionary Denial under the New Interim Processes for PTAB...

Baker Donelson on

Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for...more

ArentFox Schiff

USPTO Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ as Basis for PTAB Discretionary Denials

ArentFox Schiff on

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued a Director Discretionary Denial decision expanding on the “settled expectations” ground for discretionary denial of a post-grant review proceeding...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

New Settled Expectations Policy at the PTAB Augurs Major Practice Changes

In a startling development, Acting Director of the USPTO Coke Morgan Stewart has denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) on the basis of “settled expectations,” on the sole ground that the subject patent had been...more

K&L Gates LLP

First Denial Based on USPTO’s New Discretionary Denial Factors

K&L Gates LLP on

Earlier this year, Chief Judge Boalick issued guidance on the USPTO’s recission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” explaining how the Fintiv...more

Goodwin

Recent PTAB Developments for Regeneron’s Aflibercept Formulation Patent

Goodwin on

Earlier this month, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied institution of two petitions that were filed separately by Samsung Bioepis (IPR2025-00176) and Formycon (IPR2025-00233) for inter partes review (“IPR”)...more

5,081 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 204

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