Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Intellectual Property Law Issues for Health Care Providers
IP|Trend: Inter Partes Review: What to Consider When Filing Your Petition
Inter-Partes Review of Patents: The Case So Far (CLE)
IP|Trend: New Era in Protection of Software by Intellectual Property Law?
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
IP|Trend: Discovering Source Code
Ropes & Gray: Advantages of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Post-Grant Insights: The Significance of a Three-Judge Panel
IP|Trend: The Importance of Consumer Surveys in Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Need for Seamless Coordination of District Court & PTAB Litigation
IP|Trend: Inter Partes Review: Is it Litigation or Something Else?
Post-Grant Insights: The Preparation and Pace of the PTAB
Controlling the Cost of Patent Litigation
Post-Grant Insights: The Impact of PTAB Appeals on the Federal Circuit
Post-Grant Insights: Key Considerations in PTAB Oral Hearings
Post-Grant Insights: What claims to include in your PTAB petition
What are the Implications of Alice v. CLS?
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
Derivation Proceedings: What You Need to Know
It is a certainty that no matter what action is taken (by an individual, a group, or especially a legislative body) that there will be unintended consequences. It is also true that those unintended consequences, like the...more
Addressing the propriety of combining prior art in an obviousness analysis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) determined that a patent for a spinal implant for...more
The U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided further guidance as to what new matter may properly be raised during oral argument, explaining that parties may not present new...more
According to a recent survey of over 100 companies and universities, nearly 93% who filed patent families in 2013 filed at least some of those patent families internationally. While obtaining patent protection abroad is...more
The United States Supreme Court, clarifying the proper standard of review of factual findings arising during a court’s construction of patent claims, held that such “evidentiary underpinnings” should be reviewed for clear...more
Following a 9-day jury trial, a mistrial was declared due to a hung jury. The court granted JMOL with respect to invalidity of certain claims. New trial dates were set for remaining claims, and the court addresses here...more
Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert’s testimony is granted with respect to lost profits and denied with respect to reasonable royalty. The court took testimony and held oral argument on January 30,...more
Defendant seeks documents on the basis of the crime-fraud exception relating to abandonment and revival of a patent application which eventually issued. ...more
In three separate but related final written decisions in the first successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
It has been about 9 months since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International was decided by the Supreme Court. In that time, many district court and Federal Circuit cases have resulted in grants of summary judgment or dismissal...more
Addressing a petition to institute an inter partes review of a patent for communicating between different modem types, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to institute...more
A design patent has long been available in the United States for protecting the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (sometimes referred to as an "industrial design"). Thus, design patents can be generally...more
For young, startup companies, the landscape of patents can be difficult to navigate. Patents are expensive and complex and require substantial time and money that are often at a premium for startup companies. At the same...more
Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. is one of those Federal Circuit decisions that may send patent practitioners running to their files to double-check the phrasing used in their patent applications. Not...more
Case Name: Takeda Pharms. USA, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp., Civ. No. 14-1268-SLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155981 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2014) (Robinson, J.) (Given statements made in the accused product’s proposed labeling,...more
The Japanese Patent Act was revised on May 14, 2014 to provide for post-grant oppositions within one year of the rule change, i.e., by May 14, 2015 (the exact effective date has not yet been set). Under the new opposition...more
In the closing decades of the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court appeared to follow an informal policy of benign neglect toward the law of intellectual property. The Court entertained a case every few years...more
The PTAB issued an order providing guidance for responding to potential witness coaching during a deposition recess.
Cases IPR2014-00411 and IPR2014-00434 – FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. -
In an inter...more
In a 2-1 decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, No. 14-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015), the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Office may apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard to construe...more
Addressing a motion to submit supplemental information after institution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the motion, finding that the information—a supplemental...more
Case Name: Cubist Pharms., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 12-367-GMS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169679 (D. Del. Dec. 8, 2014) (Sleet, J.) (Valid certificate of correction results in finding of infringement and validity; remaining...more
Rosebud filed a patent infringement action Adobe and Adobe moved for summary judgment arguing that Rosebud had no remedy for its patent against Adobe. Adobe based its summary judgment motion on the argument that the...more
Addressing the location of a deposition of patent owner’s declarant, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that, absent an agreement between the parties to...more
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the “Board”) recently issued Final Written Decisions disposing of two inter partes reviews that NuVasive filed in mid-2013 regarding U.S. patent number 8,444,696 (the ’696 Patent). The ’696...more
Spineology, Inc. sued Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (Wright Medical) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota . Spineology’s complaint alleges that Wright Medical’s X-REAM percutaneous expandable...more
Back to Top