Today, January 22, 2019 the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit and held that it remains the law under the America Invents Act (AIA) that a confidential sale to a third party can trigger the...more
1/24/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied a second challenge to a patent where the petitioners were co-respondents in an ITC investigation. In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v....more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more
3/6/2018
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Standard of Review
The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) appealed findings of no infringement made by the United District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appealed the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not...more
On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal.
Issue presented -
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) requires that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issue a final...more
On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance on motions to amend based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In view of the Aqua Products decision, the PTAB...more
In issuing its precedential decision earlier this month in Two-Way Media v. Comcast, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Delaware district court determination that four data streaming patents were directed to ineligible subject...more
On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing...more
The Federal Circuit yesterday issued an opinion in In re: Smith Int’l, Inc., No. 2016-2303 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) reversing an affirmance by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the rejection of several claims of U.S....more
On August 25, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential opinion in Ex Parte McAward, reaffirming the Patent Office’s use of a lower pre-issuance threshold for indefiniteness distinct from the Supreme...more
9/20/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Reaffirmation ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
Last week, the Federal Circuit held computer memory system patent claims not abstract and thus patent-eligible under Section 101, reversing a lower court dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6). Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA...more
The Supreme Court’s decision five months ago in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands was a sea change in the way courts interpret venue for patent infringement cases. Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding...more
8/21/2017
/ Forum Shopping ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue ,
Waivers
The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue....more
5/26/2017
/ Forum Shopping ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
State of Residency ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of...more
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by...more
Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more
4/26/2017
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Vacated
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court’s judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company’s (“MedCo”) patents-in-suit. See The...more
In a widely anticipated move with implications for patent litigation across the country, the Supreme Court ruled today that the equitable defense of laches is not available to limit damages in patent infringement cases...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims....more
The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more
1/13/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Cell Phones ,
Design Patent ,
Impression Products v Lexmark International ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
iPhone ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more
The plot just thickened in the long-running debate over where patent cases should be litigated.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods, in...more
On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same...more
On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Federal Circuit recently issued a revised decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2013-1668 (Fed. Cir....more