The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit...more
2/14/2025
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Claim Construction ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 112 ,
Written Descriptions
The District of Arizona recently held that a plaintiff’s failure to mark patented products during the time period that marking was required barred it from recovering all pre-notice damages, including for a period of time when...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition because a prior art patent figure did not provide exact dimensions, and therefore could not meet the relevant claim limitation. On...more
In a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP),...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review over patent owner’s objections that the petition did not timely identify all real parties-in-interest (RPI) and was filed by a phantom legal entity after...more
7/29/2024
/ California ,
Delaware ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reorganizations
A court in the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed a complaint as to one of the asserted patents where the patent included a terminal disclaimer stating that the patent would be enforceable only as long as it was co-owned...more
The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office vacated and remanded a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discretionarily denying institution of an inter partes review petition. The Director concluded that...more
Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of...more
The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more
12/20/2023
/ Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Safe Harbors
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s argument that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny a petitioner’s inter partes review (IPR) petition because Petitioner failed to name a time-barred real...more
The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held a patentee waived its right to seek JMOL on infringement following a jury verdict of non-infringement because the patentee’s Rule 50(a) motion focused solely on...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Petitioner’s motions to sanction Patent Owner for failure to meet its duty of candor and fair dealing in five related inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB found that...more
The District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment which sought to invalidate a dependent claim on preclusion grounds based on the PTAB’s invalidation of the related...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently rejected an inter partes review petition that relied on a conclusory and unsupported expert declaration. The expert’s written testimony, which repeated portions of the petition...more
In the wake of her October 4, 2022 Precedential OpenSky decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Katherine Vidal issued another precedential decision further clarifying the actions that should be...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted a motion in limine to preclude testimony from corporate executives about their “business understanding” regarding infringement because the defendant previously...more
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s policy of permitting claim amendments unrelated to the IPR proceedings when the amended claims also included amendments that respond to a ground of...more
In an IPR institution decision issued shortly after the USPTO issued interim guidance on discretionary denials, the PTAB held that the petition presented “compelling evidence of unpatentability,” foreclosing a Fintiv...more
A district court recently denied a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the defendant successfully invalidated each claim of the patent at issue during an inter partes review proceeding. The district court...more
In its latest decision in a series of interferences related to the CRISPR gene-editing system, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted priority to The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard (collectively, “Broad”) for...more
Federal Circuit Judge Dyk, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted summary judgment of no enablement for certain claims covering a genus of antibodies intended to treat blood coagulation...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified that the scope of IPR estoppel in district courts includes prior art grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a petition for inter partes review (IPR), reversing...more
A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that cancellation of independent claims in an inter partes review (IPR) did not preclude the plaintiff from asserting infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents...more