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)
This case was the second opinion in a patent dispute saga between two poultry processing competitors over patented poultry chilling technology. See John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., 887 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir....more
SynQor, Inc. appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding un- patentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 as...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner may move to amend challenged claims to overcome the prior art. However, there are also alternative paths to amending claims over the prior art even after an...more
In SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., Case No. 19-1704 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated the inter partes reexamination decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). As part of the decision,...more
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION - Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
For the Patent and Trail Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the PTAB allows a petition for inter parties review (“IPR”) to request cancellation of claims in a U.S. patent. For an inter parties review of a patent, the PTAB institutes...more
AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Whether an asserted prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem...more
Reexamination can be stayed pending IPR proceedings for good cause shown. The PTAB recently found good cause for a stay had been established when the reexamination proceedings and IPR proceedings had only a single claim in...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the retroactive...more
After a lengthy and circuitous patent proceeding between plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons (“Mossberg”) and defendants Timney Triggers, LLC and its related manufacturing entity (collectively, “Timney”), which ultimately resulted...more
Natural Alternatives v. Iancu (No. 2017-1962, 10/1/18) (Prost, Moore, Reyna) - Prost, C.J. Affirming a PTAB inter partes reexamination decision rejecting patent claims as anticipated or obvious over the cited prior art,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2017-1962 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2018) In an appeal from an inter partes reexamination, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s...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
The Supreme Court is taking another patent case, granting certiorari in WesternGeco v. Ion. A divided panel of the Circuit had ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits as a result of the sale of components of...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR...more
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal [Order rehearing en banc] (No. 2016-1794, 8/31/17) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Hughes, Stoll) - Per Curiam. Sua sponte vacating panel opinion, ordering...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three inter partes re-examination decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating numerous claims in each of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, held in a 7-1 decision that the defense of laches is not available under the Patent Act to bar claims for damages. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby...more
It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity because plaintiff patentee established a genuine issue of...more
No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more
K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC - Addressing whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) properly refused to reject as obvious a claim calling for a multi-prong electrical connection, the U.S. Court of...more