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
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L. [OPINION] (21-2359, 21-2362, 21-2366, Moore, Lourie, and Dyk) - Moore, Chief J. The Court affirmed a PTAB decision (1) finding...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 Tax Court issued its second opinion in Medtronic following a remand by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Medtronic, Inc. v. Comm’r, 900 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2018)) of its earlier decision. In that...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents....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
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
To date, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari (commonly referred to as cert) to five patent-related cases this term, which will result in three oral arguments likely to be decided before the end of the term. Two of the...more
Addressing claim construction issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded a district court’s summary judgment rulings finding that the district court did not...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
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
Efforts by the U.S. Senate to pass an alternative to the Innovation Act, which aims to reform abusive patent litigation, have stalled. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is leading the effort, has announced that his committee is tabling...more
According to a press release, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic have agreed to settle all outstanding patent litigation between the companies, including cases related to transcatheter heart valves. The press release noted...more
When facing a patent litigation threat, potential defendants have the option to seek a declaration that they are not infringing. Until recently, however, that strategy carried a hidden risk: the burden of proof on the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that the traditional canons of litigation — including those involving jurisdiction and which party bears the burden of proof — hold true in patent cases, even those...more
Addressing the issue of whether a failure to specifically reference each earlier filed patent applications will result in a loss of claim of priority to the omitted application, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
For nearly 150 years, it has been established that a patent holder (“patentee”) ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571...more