In this week’s Case of Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed inter partes review decisions upholding as patentable Teleflex’s challenged patent claims directed to a method for use of a guide extension catheter in arteries. This...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. [OPINION] (2022-1532, 2022-1533, 8/7/2023) (Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto) - Dyk, J. The Court vacated and remanded IPR decisions by the PTAB...more
AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS - Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of objective...more
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L. Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Summary: Federal Circuit confirms low bar for evidence corroborating prior inventorship...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently grappled with the admission into evidence of expert deposition testimony that was presumably harmful to the petitioner in an inter partes...more
Although the Federal Circuit has analyzed the qualifications of prior art printed publications since its inception, the precise standards for public accessibility have become dramatically more important under PTAB...more
On November 9, 2018, Cook Medical LLC filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board requesting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,141, assigned to Medtronic Vascular, Inc. The ‘141 Patent is...more
In an opinion addressing whether a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to reconsider a decision on institution is “final and nonappealable,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed...more
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
Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare (No. 2015-1977, -1986, -1987, 10/20/16) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Denying petition for rehearing and confirming the Court's earlier order. “The Board's vacatur of its...more
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed last week that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision to discontinue inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is not reviewable on appeal. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., addressed the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016), on the issue...more
One of the aspects of inter partes review that differed from other post-grant review proceedings before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (succeeded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) is a requirement for...more
The America Invents Act (AIA) gives the Board broad discretion in deciding whether or not to institute an IPR or CBM when the Petition addresses substantially the same prior art or arguments to those previously considered by...more
Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC; Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc. - Two recent decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) clarify the test for identifying the...more
Medtronic, Inc. v. Norred - In two separate orders on the conduct of the proceeding, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) came down on the parties for their inability to...more
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc. - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) dismissed a patent owner’s improper motions for observation, agreeing with the petitioner that the...more
Decision Date: March 21, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D652,922 - Holding: Petition to Institute Inter Partes Review DENIED - Opinion: Medtronic, Inc. filed a petition...more
In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more
Petitioner Metronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a third petition for IPR of the patent that...more
On April 25, 2014, Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (“Medtronic”) filed a second petition (the ’695 Petition) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417...more