News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, July 2024: Impact of the End of Chevron on USPTO; PTAB Filings Are Up; and More

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more

Venable LLP

Loper Decision Impact on Patent Law

Venable LLP on

Venable has offered general thoughts on the potential fallout from the Supreme Court's reversal of the long-standing Chevron deference, as well as practice area-specific analysis. Here, the Intellectual Property Litigation...more

White & Case LLP

Chevron is Done — What Does Loper mean for the PTAB and ITC?

White & Case LLP on

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This landmark 6-3 ruling ends nearly 40-years of Chevron deference, the doctrine of...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Potential Impact on USPTO Regulations of Supreme Court Unraveling the Chevron Deference

Fenwick & West LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to no longer give deference to government agency interpretations could lead to challenges against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2022 #3

BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonw. Scientific and Indus. Research Org., Appeal Nos. 2020-1415, -1416, -1919, -1920 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) - Our Case of the Week, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

Jones Day on

Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Northern District of California Dismisses Challenge to PTAB’s Fintiv Factors

On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

BakerHostetler

How Administrative Law Became the Hottest Topic in Patent Disputes at the Federal Circuit

BakerHostetler on

What comes to mind when you think of “hot topics” in patent law? Subject matter eligibility? Obviousness? Damages? Quietly, administrative law has moved to the top of the list of issues that consume the attention of the Court...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

“Anything Goes” – Federal Circuit Says PTAB Can Use Any Means to Knock Out Substitute Claims (Uniloc v. Hulu: Part 2)

Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more

Sunstein LLP

Court’s Strict Interpretation of Timing Requirement May Force Patent Validity Challenges in Two Forums

Sunstein LLP on

The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...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

Troutman Pepper

The American Rule Is Still the Rule

Troutman Pepper on

Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019) - Yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more

Jones Day

Judge Dyk Says Arthrex Remedy is Unnecessary

Jones Day on

Judge Dyk and Judge Newman disagree with the Arthrex remedy requiring rehearing. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen held the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) was an...more

Troutman Pepper

The PTAB and the Constitution

Troutman Pepper on

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - June 2019: Supreme Court Eliminates Government as a Party Who Can File AIA Action at PTAB

In Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 17-1594, Justice SOTOMAYOR wrote for the majority to overturn a Federal Circuit decision that the U.S. Postal Service had standing to petition for covered business method review. The...more

Jones Day

Federal Agencies May Not Challenge Patents in AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings

Jones Day on

The Supreme Court ruled in Return Mail that a federal agency is not a "person" who may challenge an issued patent in inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM review under the AIA. In its 6–3 decision in Return Mail,...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Return Mail v. Postal Service: The Supreme Court Rules the Federal Government May Not Petition for Institution of Post-Issuance...

In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to institute patent review proceedings...more

Williams Mullen

Supreme Court Holds that Government Agencies May Not Use AIA Proceedings to Challenge Patents

Williams Mullen on

On June 10, 2019 the United States Supreme Court held in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. ____ (2019) that agencies of the federal government cannot challenge the validity of a patent via USPTO...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

High Court Says Federal Agencies Cannot Seek AIA Patent Challenges

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding that the government is a “person” eligible to petition for post-issuance AIA review proceedings. This 6-3 decision, Return Mail, Inc....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Framing Your Pitch: A Lesson from the TTI v. IBG Cases

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued three interesting, related opinions interpreting and applying the “technological invention” exception to Covered Business Method Review (“CBM Review”). These...more

Jones Day

District Court Extends IPR Estoppel To Non-Petitioned Invalidity Grounds

Jones Day on

Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Time-Barred IPR Petitioners Have Separate Standing to Appeal PTAB Decisions

In the February 1, 2019 decision of Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3282, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 405682, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision (FWD) holding claims of U.S....more

Jones Day

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar #2

Jones Day on

In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: “All the Expenses” Does Not Mean “Attorneys’ Fees”

Jones Day on

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018). The Court held, by a 7-4 vote (Judge Chen, the former PTO Solicitor, was recused), that if the...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend After Aqua Products

Knobbe Martens on

In Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01613, Paper 118 (Feb. 26, 2018), the PTAB granted the patent owner Willis Electric’s motion to amend a claim directed to lighted artificial trees. This decision...more

27 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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