This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more
The Western District of Texas recently denied a defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review based in part on the defendant’s status as a non-party in the IPR proceedings. In doing so, the district court focused on...more
We are excited to announce Venable’s inaugural Life Sciences Webinar Series. This month-long series will explore the intricacies and latest developments that shape the life sciences industry. Join us as we hear from our...more
Congress implemented the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) to “establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that [would] improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.” ...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) unopposed motion to stay its mandate issued in Arthrex. The USPTO filed its motion seeking a 90 day stay...more
This post analyzes three March 2020 opinions from the Eastern District of Texas deciding motions to stay pending: (1) an IPR filed by a third party; (2) a declaratory judgment action pursuant to the customer-suit exception;...more
Defendants sued for patent infringement in district court commonly seek litigation stays based on an American Invents Act (AIA)-contested proceeding that assesses the validity of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial...more
Powerful. Resilient. Ever-evolving. These characteristics of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were on full display in 2019. This past year the PTAB received more than 1,300 inter partes review (IPR), post grant review...more
After SAS, does institution of an IPR make a district court more or less likely to stay a parallel litigation? Maybe, maybe not. In its April 2018 decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC et al., Civil Action No. 16-662-MN (D.Del. May 31, 2019), the Court granted the motion to stay of defendants pending resolution...more
In a non-precedential opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of preliminary injunction requiring a licensee to withdraw its inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review...more
In 3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. HTC Corporation, the Honorable Christopher J. Burke of the District of Delaware denied Defendants’ motion for partial stay pending resolution of inter partes review (IPR) because of the lack of...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Since the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are interacting more with Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission...more
District courts have discretionary authority to grant a motion to stay. Courts consider three factors in deciding how to exercise that discretion, the first being whether a stay will simplify the issues for trial. In...more
When faced with allegations of patent infringement at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a respondent must quickly evaluate whether or not to request an AIA review (hereinafter, inter partes review for convenience) at...more
On August 8, 2018, Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Synaptive Medical, Inc.’s (“Synaptive”) motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff Karl Storz...more
The effects of SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018), continue to reverberate throughout the PTAB and federal district courts. In Prisusa Engineering Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No....more
On April 5, 2018, Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Rovi Guides Inc.’s (“Rovi”) motion to lift a stay related to U.S. Patent No. 8,122,034 (“the ’034 patent”), only one of five patents at issue in a case that was...more
The PTAB ruled that the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe could not assert sovereign immunity in IPRs of patents that Allergan had assigned to the Tribe relating to Restasis®. See The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is not entitled to...more
Last week, in the ongoing Immunex v. Sanofi patent litigation regarding Immunex’s claims of infringement against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product, Immunex moved to stay the litigation pending resolution of...more
On October 27, 2016, District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Comcast Corp.'s ("Comcast") motion to stay the case pending resolution of inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings instituted by the Patent Trial...more
The Federal Circuit has determined to partially stay an ITC exclusion order as it pertains to products redesigned after the remedial orders issued. We have previously posted about Certain Network Devices, Related Software and...more
In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR...more
On October 18, District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants Verizon Communications Inc.’s, Verizon Services Corp.’s, Verizon Business Network Services Inc.’s, and Cellco Partnership’s (collectively,...more