News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions...more

Why The Federal Circuit Revisited Written Description

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Fed Cir. No 2015-2011, June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded interference decisions on the ground the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)...more

“All Expenses Paid” Is No Trip to the E.D. Va. for Patent and Trademark Applicants

by BakerHostetler on

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit confirmed in Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal (No. 2016-1794) that patent applicants facing rejection from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may seek relief in the Eastern District of...more

PTAB Confirms Decision Denying Institution Based on District Court Action Ultimately Dismissed Without Prejudice

On July 6, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Ford Motor Company’s (“Petitioner”) request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of multiple inter partes reviews (IPR)...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – July 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through July 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 224 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 168 (75%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 22 (9.82%)...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Settlement 5 Days Before Final Written Decision Deadline Results in Termination Of IPR

by Knobbe Martens on

In an order issued in Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeco LLC, IPR2016-00407, IPR2016-00499, Paper 29 (P.TA.B. Jul. 5, 2017), the PTAB terminated the proceedings after the parties indicated that they had settled their...more

[Webinar] Keeping Up With the PTAB: How to Win When the Rules Seem to Change - July 26th, 12:00pm CT

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, at 12:00pm CT, Danielle Phillip, Allyn Elliott, and Peter Lee, attorneys with the Post-Grant Patent practice group, will present the webinar, "Keeping Up With the PTAB: How to Win When the Rules...more

The Federal Circuit Clarifies Notice Requirements in AIA Trials

In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., No. 2016-1984 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit faulted the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in an...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report - July 2017 #2

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Celltrion, Inc. v Genentech, Inc. - PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01121; filed March 21,...more

Rarely Granted Motion to Amend Defeated in the Federal Circuit

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Shinn Fu Co. of Am. v. Tire Hanger Corp., No. 16-2250 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a successful motion to amend granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). This appeal arose from an inter...more

Pfizer Takes Aim at Herceptin® Patent at the PTAB

by Fish & Richardson on

Pfizer has shown its muscle in the biosimilars field, purchasing Hospira in 2015 and launching the second biosimilar on the U.S. market, Inflectra® (infliximab), a biosimilar of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade®. Pfizer is now...more

PTAB Denies Motion to Withdraw as IPR Counsel

by Jones Day on

In an order entered June 30, 2017, the PTAB denied a motion by counsel for patent owner Purple Leaf, LLC (“Counsel”) to withdraw from representation in a trio of IPRs (IPR2016-01720, IPR2016-01721, and IPR2016-01722). Counsel...more

Method-of-Treatment Claims That Did Not Require a Specific Level of Efficacy Held Unpatentable as Obvious in Light Of References...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review determining Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 owned by Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd. unpatentable as obvious...more

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

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Developments in IPR Remands from the Federal Circuit During the First Half of 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Previously, we reported the outcomes of remands from the Federal Circuit to the PTAB in IPR cases through 2016.... This note is an update to that report, surveying the outcomes and status of remands to the PTAB in the...more

Known Solution to General Problem Provides Sufficient Motivation to Modify Prior Art

by Jones Day on

In a final written decision in Bass, et al., v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (IPR2016-00254), the PTAB found that the challenged claims of Fresenius’s U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010, directed to a sterile pharmaceutical composition of...more

Does IPR Extinguish Private Property Rights?

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to decide whether only Art. III federal courts, not executive branch tribunals such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), can decide whether a patent is...more

No Post-Grant Review Where Challenged Claims Are Disclaimed

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether disclaimer of all challenged claims prior to institution of post-grant review constitutes a request for adverse judgment, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that it did not and denied the...more

PTAB Discretion, Petitions Reliant on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In three recent cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressed arguments pertaining to when and how it should exercise its discretion to deny some or all grounds for unpatentability in an inter partes review (IPR)...more

Written Description Must Support Claims; Not Exclude Alternatives

In The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2015-2011] (June 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s determination in an interference that Stanford’s...more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July 2017

This appeal arises from a Northern District of Illinois decision dismissing Nalco’s infringement complaint with prejudice and denying its motion for reconsideration. Nalco argues that the law does not require pleading all...more

A Refresher on Re-Examination Estoppel

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the pre-AIA estoppel provision of 35 USC § 317(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision not to terminate all pending re-examinations of a patent...more

Issue Six: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Decide Whether IPRs Are Constitutional - The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to answer the following question: Whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the...more

PTAB May Institute Re-Examination Even Where Requester Wants It Denied

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly instituted an inter partes re-examination even though the requester had asked it to deny institution and had...more

1,867 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 75
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.