New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
SynQor, Inc. appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding un- patentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 as...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., Case No. 19-1704 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated the inter partes reexamination decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). As part of the decision,...more
All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right? So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION - Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined...more
SSB sought inter partes reexamination of a Sealy design patent. After reexamination, the decision was appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The single claim in the patent recites “[t]he ornamental designs for a...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
Unconstitutionally Appointed Judges Cannot Decide Ex Parte Appeals - In In Re Boloro Global Limited, Appeal No. 19-2349, When administrative patent judges are unconstitutionally appointed, their decisions in ex...more
In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Today the Circuit agreed to hear en banc Nantkwest v. Matal,in which the panel had reversed a district court decision that had rejected the PTO’s position that applicants who appeal a district court must pay the PTO’s legal...more
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal [Order rehearing en banc] (No. 2016-1794, 8/31/17) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Hughes, Stoll) - Per Curiam. Sua sponte vacating panel opinion, ordering...more
In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. DE C.V., the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board that invalidated Honeywell’s patent in an inter partes...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err in its conclusions that a claim element reciting “means” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 and that the challenged claims...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more
Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Conclusion that Claims Challenged in Reexamination Would Have Been Obvious - On August 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion reversing a judgment by the Patent...more
As we previously reported, the district court in Janssen v. Celltrion (in which U.S. Patent Nos. 6,284,471 and 7,598,083 are at issue) began hearing oral argument on August 16 on Celltrion’s motion for summary judgment that...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding the five asserted patents. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....more
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity because plaintiff patentee established a genuine issue of...more
No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more
The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more
Patents/Preliminary Injunction: Preliminary Injunction Ordered Based on Appellate Claim Construction Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. - Addressing a preliminary injunction filed by a defendant in a...more