News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

PTAB Releases March 2017 Stats

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has released its March 2017 statistics. The end of March marking the halfway point in the USPTO's fiscal year, the overall totals for fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017) are coming...more

Issue Four: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings - In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 3:14-cv0886-JDP (W.D. Wis. April 18, 2017), the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin drew a clear line...more

Finding of Anticipation Must Be Fully Supported by Evidence of Record

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the evidentiary standard for proving anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in two separate cases, finding that the PTAB’s conclusion of...more

5 Key Takeaways: Patent Litigation Trends

Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys Andy Rinehart and Dr. Jennifer Giordano-Coltart recently presented their assessment of trends in patent litigation and prosecution at the firm’s annual patent CLE in Research Triangle Park....more

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

Former CEO Granted Right To Inspect Books And Records Of Company After Demonstrating At Trial A "Credible Basis" To Infer...

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

On April 17, 2017, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled, in a post-trial decision, that defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) must allow plaintiff and former Cypress CEO, T.J....more

Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more

UV Curable Coatings: No Exergen, but PTAB Decision Leads to Stricken Inequitable Conduct Defense

In a recent decision in UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Judge MaryJoan McNamara struck a respondent’s inequitable conduct defense, which the respondent based on the complainants’ conduct during...more

USPTO Invites Suggestions for PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative

by Jones Day on

The Patent Office has announced an initiative to make procedural reforms in an effort to improve PTAB trial proceedings, particularly inter partes review proceedings...more

Analogous Analysis: A Survey of Recent PTAB Decisions Establishing Subject Matter Patent Eligibility

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court established the current framework for determining patent-eligible subject matter in Alice. The Alice framework is a two-part test, with step one requiring a determination regarding whether a...more

No Nexus For Novartis Gilenya Patent

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating all claims of U.S. Patent 8,324,283, which is one of four Orange...more

PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Second IPR Because Petitioner Strategically Delayed Filing to Take Advantage of Feedback from PTAB on...

On April 13, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of patent claims that were the subject of a previously filed IPR by the same petitioner. The panel found that the...more

PTAB Grants-in-Part Motions to Amend in Three Related IPRs

The PTAB granted-in-part motions to amend in three related proceedings: Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, IPR2015-01953, Paper 107 (P.T.A.B. sealed on March 23, 2017, made public on April 19, 2017);...more

PTAB's Decision Not To Institute IPR Is Relevant In A Co-Pending ITC Investigation

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

ITC complainant Aspen Aerogels, Inc. (“Aspen”) filed on March 24, 2017 a motion and supporting memorandum to reopen proceedings for receipt of additional evidence. In the Matter of: Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation...more

“Waive” That Issue Goodbye: The Importance of Preserving Arguments and Developing a Full Record

by K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently reminded litigants of the importance of developing a full record in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) proceedings. In Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., the Federal Circuit...more

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Spring 2017

by Fenwick & West LLP on

It’s Dangerous to Go Alone! Take This. Intellectual Property Tips for the Esports Industry - With the annual Game Developers Conference spectacular in our rearview mirror, and the NBA’s partnership with Take-Two to...more

Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony Before the PTAB Are Rarely Successful: Make Your Arguments in Substantive Responses and...

It is common for both petitioners and patent owners to present expert opinion testimony in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB). In many cases, parties have moved to exclude all or part of...more

Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

In my last post, I discussed estoppel in the context in inter partes review, in which defendant filed for IPR after losing in the courts. The Board found the claims-in-suit to be obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the...more

Novartis AG, LTS et al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Prior Judicial Opinions Don’t Bind the PTAB

After Novartis’ patents were found nonobvious by the Fed. Cir., affirming the Delaware District Court, defendant Noven filed for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6316023 and 6335031, on rivastigmine and an...more

IPR Estoppel: Ripe for Gamesmanship?

In Douglas Dynamics LLC, v. Meyer Products LLC, [14-cv-886-jdp] (D. Wisc. Document # 68 April 18. 2017), the district court considered the scope of estoppel after an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The Court identified three...more

PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part II - April 2017#2

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al. v Janssen Oncology, Inc. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00853;...more

PTAB Weighs Five Factors in Discretionary Denial of Xactware’s Second IPR Petition

The PTAB weighed five factors in its discretionary denial of a second IPR petition filed by the same petitioner in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Tech., Inc., IPR2017-00034, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. April 13, 2017)....more

Pharmaceutical Compound Nonobvious Absent Evidence Suggesting Specific Modification to Prior Art Compound

by Jones Day on

The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2016-00204, upholding the validity of claims 1–13 of Patent RE38,551 E (“the ’551 patent”), which covers the antiepileptic drug VIMPAT® (lacosamide)....more

Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Can a prior art reference that does not contain a teaching sufficient enough to allow it to be used in an obviousness combination nevertheless be used as a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine? ...more

SAS Urges High Court to Restore Balance to AIA Post-Grant Framework

by Jones Day on

Who makes the country’s patent laws—Congress, or the Patent Office? A recent petition for certiorari filed by SAS Institute, Inc.—represented by a team of Jones Day lawyers—asks the Supreme Court to decide that question in...more

1,697 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 68
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!