News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office Appeals

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more +
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.    less -

PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims

In IPCOM GmbH & Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation, and...more

Win or Lose: Appellants of PTO Decisions in District Court Must Pay Attorneys' Fees

by Jones Day on

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held in NantKwest v. Matal that patent applicants seeking review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the district court must pay the PTO's legal...more

Supreme Court Holds Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

by Perkins Coie on

In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) that a provision of the Lanham Act banning the registration of marks considered disparaging to “persons, institutions,...more

USPTO Can Receive Its Attorneys’ Fees for Applicant Appeals to District Court

In NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the USPTO’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the “expenses” authorized under 35 U.S.C....more

Paying for Attorneys' Fees Whether you Win or Lose on Appeals from the PTAB

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that a party appealing a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) by bringing a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office...more

Patent Applicants Must Pay USPTO’s Legal Fees For Appeals To District Court Under 35 U.S.C. §145

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017). In a 2-1 panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that an applicant for patent who pursues an appeal to the U.S. District...more

Supreme Court to Decide the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more

Earthquake Coming? Supreme Court to Weigh Constitutionality of IPRs (2nd Article)

On June 12, the Supreme Court took certiorari on probably the biggest IPR case possible: a case challenging the constitutionality of IPRs on separation-of-powers and seventh amendment grounds. This comes just a few weeks...more

Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings

by Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings conducted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the America Invents Act. The Court’s...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether IPRs Are Unconstitutional

by Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent Office to determine the validity of existing patents – is unconstitutional in Oil...more

Oil States v. Lee Brings Mother of all IPR Cases to Supreme Court

On June 12, the Supreme Court took certiorari on probably the biggest IPR case possible: a case challenging the constitutionality of IPRs on separation-of-powers and seventh amendment grounds. This comes just a few weeks...more

Supreme Court to Hear Another IPR Case — SAS Institute v. Lee

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in another Inter Partes Review dispute, this time in SAS Institute v. Lee. The Court will decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may properly institute partial review (i.e.,...more

How Far Is Too Far? Institution Decision to Final Written Decision

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In making a final written decision of AIA proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is not bound by findings made in an institution decision. In three recent decisions, the Federal Circuit considered the...more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. Please see full publication below for more information....more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the PTAB Must Address All Claims Challenged in a Petition

by Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether the PTAB is required to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every claim challenged by a petitioner in SAS...more

Statements Made in an IPR Can Lead to Prosecution Disclaimer

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee : For the Love of Administrative Efficiency

On the same day the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft, the Court also granted a petition for writ of certiorari in SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee. The question presented in that petition...more

New Fed Circuit decision bolsters on-sale bar

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Patent litigators will tell you that there are many ways to invalidate a patent. One of their favorites is a self-inflicted ground of invalidity known as the “on-sale bar.” Under patent law, if you sell (or offer to sell)...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more

Federal Circuit Maintains Pre-AIA Interpretation of the On-Sale Bar for Public Sales

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

A Sale is Still a Sale under the AIA

At least so far, the meaning of “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has not changed from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) following a decision by the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,...more

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

Novartis’ Gilenya Patent Invalidated as Obvious

by Knobbe Martens on

On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...more

160 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.