The Buzz, An Economic Development Podcast | Episode 86: Thomas Komaromi
Episode 117 -- FCPA Update: Samsung FCPA Settlement; Braskem Former CEO Indicted; Transport CEO Convicted after Trial
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
On August 18, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”), filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2023-01312, challenging the validity of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,464,992, assigned to Regeneron...more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
On May 10, 2023, a PTAB Panel excused the late filings of the Patent Owner and allowed over thirty exhibits and a Corrected Patent Owner Response (“CPOR”) to be submitted into the record in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v....more
The PTAB recently issued back-to-back Fintiv denials. The first denial issued on May 4, 2023. Read here about Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. California Institute of Tech., No. IPR2023-00130, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 4,...more
On March 10, 2023, the PTAB denied institution of IPR2022-1524, filed by Apotex Inc. regarding Regeneron’s Patent No. 11,253,572. As we previously reported, Apotex filed an IPR petition against the ’572 patent in...more
The USPTO published Revision 07.2022 of the Ninth Edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A change summary is available here....more
Celltrion and Samsung recently filed IPR petitions challenging claims of Regeneron patents directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with aflibercept. Specifically, Celltrion and Samsung have each filed petitions...more
Fate of Fintiv - As discussed in our Client Alert, “Fintiv 2.0: USPTO Director Issues Guidance Softening Risk of Discretionary Denial,” USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued a set of interim procedures clarifying how the PTAB...more
USPTO Leadership - On April 13, Kathi Vidal was sworn in as the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Director Vidal offered...more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments related to patent litigation in federal district courts of Texas for the month of October 2021....more
Under the Board’s rules, a patent owner gets to have the last word in a PTAB proceeding by filing a sur-reply to the petitioner’s reply. Sur-replies may only respond to arguments raised in the reply, and the “sur-reply … may...more
KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Newman, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The forum selection clause in the parties'...more
On February 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) invalidation of a video compression patent challenged by Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”). The Court examined two issues:...more
In only its third precedential patent case of 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed two discrete issues. It established further precedent concerning whether references on web pages and as part of meetings of interested artisans...more
In Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No 19-civ-4297 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 19, 2021), the parties’ forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreement did not prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) from...more
“Printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is typically construed to encompass any type of document, as long as the document is “publicly accessible.” See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....more
In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the '740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...more
Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds...more
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00860 (February 7, 2020) (Paper No. 15). Samsung filed two IPR petitions against NuCurrent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,680,960, which related to a multi-layer-multi-turn...more