Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement - In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
Despite no precedential patent decisions at the Federal Circuit last week, the Court still addressed some interesting issues, including a decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patentee’s alleged...more
In Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., the Federal Circuit held that the plain meaning of the claim phrase “command function” was limited to functions that command an action to be taken. The meaning of...more
Interferences were rendered unnecessary with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2011, but they linger in disputes between patents and applications claiming priority to applications filed before the change...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC addressing the different claim construction standards used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (broadest reasonable...more
Expiration of a Patent Does Not Always Trigger Application of Phillips Standard on IPR Appeal - In Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal No. 19-1749, the Federal Circuit held that expiration of a patent...more
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC v. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in...more
Last fall, the PTAB modified its procedures for IPR claim construction, eliminating the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Since the rule change last year, companies challenging the validity of patents at...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that obviousness can be based on a single prior art reference if modifying that prior art reference...more
The claim construction determinations in Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. V. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. may leave stakeholders in the pharmaceutical space scratching their heads, and highlights that it’s rarely possible to...more
On October 11, 2018, the USPTO published a Final Rule in the Federal Register, adopting a new standard for interpreting claims in trial proceedings before the patent trial and appeal board (PTAB)....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1521 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Court reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
On August 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (“the ’831 Patent”) are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Ericsson Inc. v....more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Reyna, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board must consider arguments in an IPR petitioner’s reply, where the arguments expressly follow...more
The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more
On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118 (“the ’118 Patent”) are anticipated.by U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330 (“Gnaga”) and Japanese Application No....more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - In re Power Integrations, Inc., Appeal No. 17-1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In In re: Power Integrations, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) rejection of a...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moor, Mayer, and Stoll. Appeal from the patent Trial and Appeal Board Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot be so broad that it is inconsistent with...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, Appeal No. 2017-1842 (March 7, 2018) - In Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evaluation of “teaching away” requires consideration of whether a reference “criticize[s],...more
The Circuit affirms the decision in Secured Mail v. Universal to dismiss an infringement case under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that all of the asserted claims of the seven patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter....more
In Jang v. Boston Scientific, the Circuit takes on the doctrine of ensnarement, affirming a district court’s grant of JMOL based on the patentee’s inability to develop a hypothetical claim that covered the accused stent but...more