On 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have...more
In a 2-1 split decision on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB“) had the authority to reject substitute claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, statutory...more
In a Halloween decision, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al., an appeal from IPR2017-00275....more
On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for certiorari filed by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe....more
Tuesday, April 24, 2018, proved to be a banner day for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. The United States Supreme Court issued two separate opinions addressing the regime, the first upholding the constitutionality of...more
In August of 2016, the Federal Circuit granted Aqua Products, Inc.’s (“Aqua Products”) petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the patent owner bears the burden of persuasion of patentability when amending...more
In a case pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, set to begin trial on June 12, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee following the Supreme Court’s decision in TC...more
The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more
On January 11, Judge Sue L. Robinson issued her final decision on statutory estoppel in district court post-inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, confirming her decision on summary judgement of invalidity and cross motion...more
In its first design patent case in over a century, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, reversed a damages award Apple Inc. (“Apple”) had won over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) in their protracted...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., addressed the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016), on the issue...more
In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more
10/13/2016
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Claim Construction ,
Corporate Counsel ,
En Banc Review ,
Mobile Devices ,
Motorola ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
Technology ,
Telecommunications ,
Teva v Sandoz ,
Young Lawyers
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently implemented significant amendments to its Rules of Practice (“Rules”). The changes apply to all cases docked on or after April 1, 2016. In large part, the...more
In a key development regarding Inter Partes Review (IPR) procedure, on September 1, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued an order that lays the groundwork for how the Board may address cases on remand...more
On August 20, 2015, the Patent and Trademark Office published, in the Federal Register, a set of “Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” that would amend 37 CFR Part 42. Among...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to make clear that amending claims during post-grant inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges is far different from amending claims during original examination or reexamination. The...more
Following a recent hearing involving K&L Gates’ lawyers before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on behalf of the patent owner in an inter partes reexamination, several key practice tips emerged that may be useful as...more
On Saturday, March 16, 2013, the “first-inventor-to-file” provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) go into effect. These provisions replace the current “first-to-invent” system. In addition to various other...more