News & Analysis as of

Judicial Review Patents

Rx IP Update - May 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Federal Court of Appeal finds that Apotex did not fail to mitigate its damages in relation to Apo-Trazodone drug submission - On April 6, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court’s finding that...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by Jones Day on

The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal. In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Considering Whether 1-Year IPR Time Bar Is Appealable

by Jones Day on

As we reported earlier, the Federal Circuit decided in January 2017 to rehear en banc whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar can be reviewed on appeal. Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. The...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - March 2017

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

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

Rx IP Update - February 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

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...more

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

by FPA Patent Attorneys on

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

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

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

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

by Proskauer Rose LLP on

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?

by Knobbe Martens on

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

by McDermott Will & Emery on

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

by WilmerHale on

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

by Fenwick & West LLP on

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

by Ladas & Parry LLP on

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

49 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 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.