Latest Posts › Patents

Share:

Justices Craft Their Own Remedy for Violation of Constitution’s Appointments Clause

On Monday, the justices ruled 5-4 that the “unreviewable authority” of administrative patent judges meant those APJs were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause. The justices then ruled 7-2 that the...more

Justices Scale Back “Unreviewable Authority” of Administrative Patent Judges

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that more than 200 administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be subject to greater supervision by the agency director in order to comply with the Constitution’s...more

. License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm. Background - Qualcomm sued...more

Justices To Consider Appointments Clause Challenge To Administrative Patent Judges

The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s United States v. Arthrex, Inc., consolidated with both Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith...more

Arthrex Amicus Briefs – Novel Arguments for the Court To Consider

On December 2nd, amicus briefs in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States were filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases. There were also several amicus briefs filed in support of no party. Previous articles...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies The “Reasonably Pertintent” Analogous Art Standard

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an IPR decision in Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, because the PTAB used the wrong standard in evaluating whether a reference was analogous art. The correct standard,...more

What Arthrex Could Mean for the PTAB Going Forward

Now that the Supreme Court has granted cert in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, patent owners and petitioners alike may be wondering what ramifications the Court’s decision may have on their proceedings.  In this article, we...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of PTAB Judge Appointments

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that has dramatic and sweeping implications for proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court granted three petitions for writ of...more

Federal Circuit Orders Partial Dismissal of Voip-Pal’s IPR Challenged Claims

In a succinct opinion, the Federal Circuit ordered a remedy which raises questions thought to have been settled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, namely whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can address only some of the...more

CBM Review: A Postmortem

Covered business method (CBM) review is scheduled to end on September 15 this year. Part of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act, CBM review was envisioned as a transitional tool for accused infringers to challenge weak...more

PTAB - 2019 Year in Review

To wrap up 2019 and usher in 2020 for practitioners who handle Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) matters, Foley partners Jeanne Gills, Steve Maebius, and George Quillin discussed 2019’s major developments in a webinar on...more

Federal Circuit Demotes Unconstitutionally Appointed PTAB Judges

With the Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy holding IPRs constitutional under Article III, and the Federal Circuit in Celgene v. Peter holding the retroactive use of IPRs against pre-AIA patents not to be an...more

SAS "Ground" Rules

In a quartet of recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that SAS Institute extends beyond mandating the inclusion of all claims when trial is instituted, and extends to all grounds as well. These decisions confirm...more

SAS Institute: Two Weeks In

As explained in a prior client alert, two weeks ago the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu holding that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of...more

Supreme Court Upholds the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Reviews

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712, affirming the constitutionality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) inter...more

Supreme Court Holds That the PTO Cannot Institute Review on Only Some of the Challenged Claims

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-969, holding that when the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the...more

En Banc Federal Circuit To Review Standards for Amending Claims During AIA Proceedings

In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more

PTAB Average Time-To-Decision in IPRs May Surprise You

This post was co-authored by Foley & Lardner Summer Associate Jonathan E. Robe. Ever wonder how long it takes the PTAB to decide to institute trial? Ever have someone ask how long it will take for the Board to issue its...more

Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Office’s First Decision of Unpatentability in an Inter Partes Review

Today in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 14-1301, a majority (Judges Dyk and Clevenger) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deem certain claims of a speed limit indicator patent...more

19 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