News & Analysis as of

Prior Art America Invents Act

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the...more

Design Patent Survives AIA Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a rare inter partes review (IPR) decision involving a challenge to a design patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision finding that the petitioner had not shown that a sole claim of a design...more

Post-Grant Review Estoppel – Looking Forward by Looking Back at Estoppel in Inter-Partes and Covered-Business-Method Review

In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more

The shifting standard for IPR estoppel: Where are we now?

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

There is no doubt that inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) are now the favored mechanism for invalidating patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) is the single largest venue for U.S. patent disputes, beating out...more

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In an otherwise unremarkable albeit precedential decision, the Federal Circuit set forth an explication of when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has, and has not, given the court enough information to determine whether its...more

Evidence to Negate PGR Eligibility Based on Filing Date May Not Be Sufficient to Establish Filing Date for Purposes of Antedating...

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time the sufficiency of evidence needed to establish an earlier priority date for purposes of post-grant review (PGR) eligibility versus the evidence required to antedate a prior art reference, the...more

PTAB Reversed on Issue of Diligent Reduction to Practice

Perfect Surgical Techniques (PST), Inc. owns US 6,030,384 (‘384). Olympus petitioned for Inter Partes review of ‘384 as anticipated or obvious over JP H10-33551 (JP ‘551). JP ‘551 published less than one year before the...more

Case shows ever-changing nature of patent law

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

The America Invents Act (AIA), passed almost five years ago, continues to substantially change patent law in the United States — and questions about the law’s effects are still being litigated. One important question...more

Federal Circuit Will Review PTAB Rules for Claim Amendments in AIA Reviews

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The full US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an order granting en banc review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s) rules governing amendments filed in the course of America Invents Act...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc. -- CAFC Grants Rehearing En Banc to Consider PTAB Motions to Amend

On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 14, Issue 2 (Spring 2016)

Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar - The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The...more

Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar

The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The America-Invents-Act (AIA), which altered the language in the statutes that apply to...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc.: Federal Circuit Continues To Uphold PTAB Limits on Motions To Amend

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

Although the America Invents Act permits patent owners to file motions to amend claims in a patent under review, see e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), patentees generally have been unsuccessful in seeking amendments. The USPTO has...more

Prior Art: When On Sale Is Not 'On Sale'

by WilmerHale on

Pursuant to Section 102 of the Patent Act, the “on-sale” bar can invalidate a patent when the claimed invention has been the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale, and the invention is ready for patenting. Prior to...more

May 2016: Patent Litigation Update

District Court Rules Non-Public Sales or Offers for Sale No Longer Apply to the “On-Sale” Bar Under the AIA. The on-sale statutory bar is a limitation on patentability that prohibits an inventor from obtaining a patent, when...more

IPR Motions to Amend: Rays of Hope Despite Gloomy Statistics

by WilmerHale on

The America Invents Act permits patent owners to move to amend claims of a patent subject to inter partes review. However, attempts to amend claims have been largely unsuccessful to date, and some of the hurdles patent owners...more

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Claim Amendments in Post-Grant Patent Challenges

by WilmerHale on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has used a “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard for claim interpretation when examining pending patent applications. Under the BRI standard, a claim term is...more

Strategic Considerations of Estoppel for IPRs After Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems

by WilmerHale on

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...more

Printed Publications at the PTO

by WilmerHale on

With the implementation of the America Invents Act of 2011, inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have become a popular way to challenge the validity of a patent. The types of information which...more

CAFC Partially Relaxes IdleFree Requirements for Amendments During IPR

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

On February 11, 2016, in Nike v. Adidas (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit partially relaxed the hurdle for a patent owner to amend claims during an IPR or other AIA proceeding. This follows the PTAB’s own earlier partial...more

IP Newsflash - January 2016

SUPREME AND FEDERAL COURT CASES - U.S. Supreme Court Denies Writ to Overturn Application of the Kessler Doctrine - The U.S. Supreme Court denied software developer’s SpeedTrack writ to overturn the Federal...more

Starbucks Brews Successful CBMs - Starbucks Corp. v. Ameranth, Inc.

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing patent eligibility for a covered business method (CBM) review under Section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) found the patents-at-issue to be eligible and...more

Preponderance Standard Applies to Ex Parte Re-examinations - Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the presumption of validity in ex parte re-examinations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that the presumption of validity does not apply to patents under reexamination in the U.S....more

URGENT: Change to Correction of Claims for Foreign Priority Dates

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) provides that the filing date of an earlier foreign patent application may now be the effective prior art date for subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent...more

Wertheim, Dynamic Drinkware and the AIA

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that in order for a patent to qualify as prior art as of its provisional application filing date, the provisional application must support the...more

99 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
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!