News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Federal Circuit Gives PTAB Free Hand on Claim Construction

by Morgan Lewis on

The Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is not constrained by parties’ proposed constructions and may, in fact, adopt an alternative construction that the Board raises for the first time at...more

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate...

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient...more

Written Description Lacking Where Nothing in the Specification Suggests Inventor Contemplated Claimed Invention

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, [2016-1143, 2016-1144](May 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part the Board’s decision in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,082. ...more

EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly

by Jones Day on

In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017. No....more

PTAB Invalidates Patent for Blockbuster Drug HUMIRA®

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Coherus BioSciences Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2016-00172 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2017) finding claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 (“the ‘135 patent”) unpatentable....more

The Supreme Court - May 22, 2017

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341: Respondent Kraft Foods brought a patent infringement suit against petitioner TC...more

The Federal Circuit Affirms the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Invalidation of All Claims of a Gilenya® Patent

by K&L Gates LLP on

Torrent Pharmaceuticals (“Torrent”), Apotex Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals filed two inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions in 2014 seeking review of all claims of U.S. Patent 8,324,283 (the “’283 patent”), which is related...more

The Goods on IP - April 2017

Intellectual property plays an important role in maintaining a competitive edge in rapidly evolving consumer product and consumer packaged goods markets. Consumers expect ongoing product improvements, and savvy companies...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more

Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2017)

Magistrate Recommends Narrow Interpretation of Inter Partes Review Estoppel Provision - Earlier this month, in Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern...more

Post-Grant Proceedings Overview

by Morgan Lewis on

Post-Grant Proceedings Chart - Effect of concurrent proceedings - For Inter Partes Review (IPR) - ..No IPR may be filed by a party (1) that previously challenged the validity of a claim of the patent in a civil...more

Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Biscotti, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015, DI 191 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) that Microsoft should be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that...more

Secondary Considerations Carry The Day

by Jones Day on

We have previously reported (on February 1, on March 1, and on March 30) how patent owners have seen a mixed bag of results in trying to convince PTAB panels that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were sufficient to...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part II - May 2017

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC. v. Alcon Research, Ltd. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01053; filed...more

You Can Not Claim What you Don’t Possess – Federal Circuit Holds Fiber Optic Claims Invalid under Section 112

On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems,...more

PTAB Grants Joinder of Time-Barred Petitioner to IPR after Settlement with Original Petitioner

The PTAB granted joinder of a time-barred petitioner to an IPR trial after the patent owner settled its dispute with the original petitioner in AT&T Services, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, IPR2017-01237, Paper 10...more

Be Careful What You Wish For: Federal Circuit Says Statements Made During IPR Can Limit Scope of Patent

by K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more

Fish Client Coherus BioSciences Prevails in ‘135 IPR Decision

by Fish & Richardson on

REDWOOD CITY, Calif., May 16, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Coherus BioSciences, Inc. (Nasdaq:CHRS), announced that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled in favor of Coherus’...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

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

Key Trends In Pharmaceutical IPRs Filed By Generic Petitioners

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

We reviewed a sub-group of two hundred and four (204) IPRs filed by generic drug companies against pharmaceutical patents to assess PTAB outcomes and key trends in dealing with this technology field. The survey captured IPR...more

PTAB Finds Abbvie’s Humira Patent Unpatentable

by Goodwin on

The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00172, filed by Coherus, finding Abbvie’s U.S. Patent 8,889,135 unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. The ‘135 patent is directed to methods of treating rheumatoid...more

Statements Made In IPR Preliminary Responses May Trigger Later Prosecution Disclaimer

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a patent owner’s statements made in a preliminary statement during an AIA inter partes review (IPR) proceeding may create...more

Court Narrows Invalidity Case Through IPR Estoppel, but Federal Circuit’s Shaw Decision Keeps Some Arguments Alive

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) raised the possibility that the inter partes review (IPR) estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) might not do much...more

PTAB Provides Another Estoppel Datapoint — No Estoppel for Petitioner Using Its Own Documents

In Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) prevents the petitioner from challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR on any “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably...more

1,753 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 71
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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!