News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Kyle Bass Ends with a Bang: Success in Final PTAB Decision

by Fish & Richardson on

On June 7, 2017, Kyle Bass received his last final written decision in a long list of PTAB decisions rendered over the past two years as Kyle Bass sought to invalidate pharma patents. U.S. Patent No. 8,476,010 (the “’010...more

The Board can Rely on a Party’s Arguments in an IPR, as Long as it Explains Why

In Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A., [2016-1769] (June 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,855,171 would have been obvious over a combination of...more

PTAB Denies Timely, Relevant Supplement to Petition

by Jones Day on

By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...more

US: Supreme Court takes up constitutionality of inter partes review

by Hogan Lovells on

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the constitutionality of inter partes review, a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) that allows third parties, typically alleged...more

Supreme Court to Review Whether PTAB Must Address All Issues Raised in IPR Petition

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Echoing Judge Newman’s dissent in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, Case Nos. 15-1346; -1347 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 7, 2016) (per curiam) (Newman, J,...more

General Statements in Petition and Institution Decision Did Not Give Patent Owner Fair Notice of the Grounds of Invalidity in the...

In Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., [2016-1984] (June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1–2, 4–14, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,599,758 were obvious, and...more

In Fight Over Recombinant Blood Clotting Factor, PTAB Denies Motion to Submit Supplemental Information

In a case that highlights the importance for petitioners to conduct a thorough prior art search and to anticipate patent owner’s arguments, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. §...more

When Final is Not So Final: Strategies for Overcoming Final Rejections

Typically, during prosecution of a U.S. application, a second or subsequent Office Action could be made final by the patent examiner at which time prosecution of the application is essentially closed. For an applicant who...more

PTAB Grants Discovery to Underlying Test Data

by BakerHostetler on

Discovery in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is typically quite limited, and the PTAB normally is reluctant to grant motions for additional discovery. It is instructive,...more

PTAB Invalidates Two Cisco Patents Found Valid and Infringed at the ITC

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the...more

Humira Patents Invalidated in Inter Partes Reviews

by Morgan Lewis on

AbbVie’s arguments raised in a prior IPR were key to the PTAB’s finding of no commercial success. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all of the claims of three AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (AbbVie) patents...more

PTAB Rules in Favor of Fish Client Coherus BioSciences in Two More IPR Decisions

by Fish & Richardson on

Fish represented Coherus before the PTAB. On June 9, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of Coherus’ petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of AbbVie’s U.S. Patent 9,073,987 (‘987 Patent) and U.S....more

Supreme Court Agrees To Review Challenge To Constitutionality Of AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In a somewhat surprising decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 12, 2017 to hear a challenge to the legality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings implemented by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in...more

Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of inter partes reviews

by Dentons on

After rejecting three prior requests, the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) is constitutional. In its petition filed November 23, 2016, Oil States Energy Services, LLC, asked...more

Sometimes It’s Better to Forgo Appeal

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part cross-appeals of two inter partes review (IPR) decisions (IPR2014-00295 and IPR2014-00476) based on various arguments relating to claim...more

Estoppel in CBMR is Both Reviewable and Determined on a Claim by Claim Basis

In Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, [2016-2001](June 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that Westlake was not estopped to bring a Covered Business Method Review challenge to U.S. Patent No....more

Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of IPR Proceedings

by Fish & Richardson on

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 (U.S. cert. granted June 12, 2016) (Fed. Cir.: Per curiam (Moore, O’Malley, Hughes)) (PTAB) (5 of 5 stars). The Supreme has granted certiorari to...more

PTAB Finds Two Abbvie Adalimumab Method of Use Patents Unpatentable in Final Written Decisions

by Goodwin on

The PTAB has issued Final Written Decisions in IPRs filed by Coherus against two of Abbvie’s patents, IPR2016-00188 (U.S. Patent No. 9,017,680) and IPR2016-00189 (U.S. Patent No. 9.073,987), finding the challenged claims...more

Keys To Successful Swear-Behind Attempts Before PTAB

For patents subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, patent owners involved in post-grant challenges such as inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can disqualify an asserted reference by establishing an...more

District Court deference to PTAB regarding priority claim? Not necessarily.

by Jones Day on

In instituting IPR of a particular patent, the PTAB found that the patent was not entitled to its priority claim, thus opening it up to invalidity attacks. However, because the PTAB’s decision was not being challenged in the...more

District Court Adopts Narrow Reading of Shaw and Finds that IPR Estoppel Applies to Manuals for Prior Art Products

Last year, the Federal Circuit in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc. articulated that a petitioner is not estopped from relying on a ground on which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined...more

BREAKING NEWS: SCOTUS to Consider Whether AIA Review is Constitutional

by Goodwin on

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Oil States Energy Services’ petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the constitutionality of post-grant review proceedings by the USPTO’s PTAB. Oil States appealed to the U.S....more

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Claims Directed to Providing Financing for Allowing a Customer to Purchase a Car found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the Patent Trial...more

Are Inter-Partes-Review Proceedings Constitutional? Supreme Court Will Weigh In

by Jones Day on

Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of inter partes review...more

Recent PTAB Decision Highlights Importance of Secondary Considerations in Obviousness Challenges

Obviousness challenges are popular post-grant challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Generally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (“§ 103”), the courts make legal and factual inquiries into (1) the scope and content...more

1,813 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 73
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.