Judicial Review Patents

News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Newsletter - March 2017

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: updated predictions on patent policy under the Trump administration; recent happenings...more

RxIP Update - February 2017

Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant...more

To concede or not concede (infringement): that is the question! An instance of a third party licence being requested during...

Under Australian law, if a patent application ceases and the patent is subsequently reinstated by the owner by use of our extension of time provisions, a third party may obtain a licence to the patent on the basis of steps...more

2016 PTAB Year in Review

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present our 2016 PTAB Year in Review. We begin with a look at 2016 activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which again ranked as the busiest jurisdiction in the...more

Federal Circuit Finds IPR Petitioner Lacks Standing To Appeal

On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more

Federal Circuit Requires Standing To Appeal An IPR Decision

In the case of Phygenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the petitioner (Phygenix) that had unsuccessfully challenged certain claims of ImmunoGen’s U.S. Patent No....more

An IPR Does Not Necessarily Have Standing to Appeal if it Loses

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., [2016-1544] (January 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix, the losing petitioner in an IPR, lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more

Federal Circuit to Reconsider Achates Decision en banc

The Federal Circuit is set to reconsider one of its more controversial decisions en banc, when it decides whether the Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc. decision was correctly decided. Specifically, in Wi-Fi...more

Reduced Scope of Post-IPR Estoppel Imperils Litigation Stays

In Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 3-13-cv-00571 (NJD November 4, 2016, Mem. Op. Dkt. 238) (Bongiovanni, MJ), the Court analyzed and applied recent Federal Circuit decisions limiting the scope of post-IPR estoppel...more

IPR Estoppel Narrowed Even Further in D. Delaware Ruling

Despite the astounding success for patent challengers to date in IPR proceedings, are you one who has been worried about the effects of the IPR estoppel in future litigation? Has this concern dissuaded you from considering...more

Three Point Shot - November 2016

Who's First in Ownership of the "Sweet Spot" Remains Unclear - Baseball is often called a "game of inches," whether one is describing the strike zone, a close play at the plate, or a liner past third base that just kicks...more

Medtronic v. Robert Bosch – Has the Federal Circuit closed the door on reviewing IPR institution decisions?

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more

Federal Circuit Provides Two-Part Analysis for Determining Reviewability of PTAB Institution Decisions

The Federal Circuit in Husky Injection Molding Systems, Inc. v. Athena Automation Ltd., No. 2015-1726 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016) recently dismissed Husky’s appeal from a final written decision in IPR. The court found it...more

Business Litigation Report - August 2016

Circuit Courts Align to Shield SEC Administrative Proceedings from Collateral Constitutional Attack - In response to the financial crisis of the late 2000s, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer...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

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

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Leaves Intact PTAB Authority to Institute and Regulate Inter Partes Review Proceedings

This week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court decided two important questions related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over inter partes review proceedings. First,...more

Cuozzo V. Lee: Supreme Court Affirmed That Claims Should Be Given Their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation In Inter Partes Review

On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more

Supreme Court Upholds the PTAB’s Status Quo in Cuozzo

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more

Supreme Court Maintains Status Quo on Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Test and Non-Appealability of Institution Decisions

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more

Supreme Court Defers to the Patent Office on Institution and Management of Post-Grant Proceedings

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more

Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo – Leaving in Place BRI and Judicial Review Limitation for IPR Proceedings

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holdings on claim construction and the scope of judicial review in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding....more

Supreme Court Defers to Patent Office on IPR Procedure, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee

The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more

47 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
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 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.
×