News & Analysis as of

Safe Harbors Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Considers Sweeping Reform to Address Discretionary Denials and Petitions Filed by...

The USPTO is considering changes to provide a framework to guide practitioners and the PTAB in assessing the circumstances that warrant the PTAB’s exercise of its discretion to deny a petition. The USPTO is considering...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

USPTO Proposed Rulemaking Could Reshape Post-Grant Practice Under the AIA

On April 21, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), based on a Request for Comments (RFC) published in 2020. The ANPRM sets forth a series of proposed rule...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

The USPTO Reins In Fintiv

No recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision has been more impactful than Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 (Mar. 20, 2020). It has led to about 200 discretionary denials of post grant proceedings, sparked...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Biosimilar Litigation Trends and Lessons Learned in 2019

It has been nearly 10 years since the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act) was enacted. The first biosimilar product in U.S. history was approved and launched in 2015. Ten biosimilars...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health in Motion LLC, Appeal No. 2018-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a fee award against prevailing...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Summer 2016

Fenwick & West LLP on

Supreme Court Expands Discretion to Award Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement and Eliminates the Federal Circuit’s ‘Seagate Test’ - In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Interference Statute Does Not Require Diligence For Re-Presenting Claims

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In In re: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, the Federal Circuit held that pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(1) does not embody a diligence requirement, such that interfering claims presented more than 5 years...more

7 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide