Summary: The USPTO policy of refusing to consider Requests for Director Rehearing of decisions denying institution of IPR and PGR does not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution....more
ALARM.COM INC. v. HIRSHFELD -
Before Taranto, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) permits judicial...more
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A.
Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims of a continuation application were anticipated because they were not...more
SEABED GEOSOLUTIONS (US) INC. v. MAGSEIS FF LLC.
Before Moore, Linn, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Where a claim term’s meaning is clear from the intrinsic evidence, no extrinsic evidence...more
Before the United States Supreme Court. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Summary: A statute preventing the PTO Director from...more
6/25/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
9/2/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Denial of Institution ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Estoppel ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC -
Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. O’Malley dissenting. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board did not exceed its statutory authority in an inter partes...more
B/E AEROSPACE, INC. v. C&D ZODIAC, INC.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Common sense may be invoked in obviousness determination if accompanied by reasoned...more
ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC.
Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more
The Decision. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) are not appealable, even if such institution decisions may...more
4/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC -
Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR petitioner may not join itself to an earlier IPR in which it was already a...more
BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC -
Before Wallach, Moore, and Chen. Consolidated appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the U.S. District Court for the District of New...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action,...more
2/12/2019
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Biosimilars ,
Clinical Trials ,
Estoppel ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mootness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing