GRÜNENTHAL GMBH v. ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC, PGR2019-00026, -00027, 00028 (PTAB, July 28, 2020) -
The PTAB issued decisions in a trio of post-grant reviews. One of the defenses put forward by the Patent Owner was that...more
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir., July 22, 2020).
Uniloc owned a patent entitled “System and Method for Adjustable Licensing of Digital Products.” In an IPR, petitioners Hulu and...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, IPR2018-00600 (July 6, 2020) -
Designated Precedential on July 6, 2020 -
Petitioner Hunting Titan challenged Patent Owner Dynaenergetics’ claims based upon anticipation...more
In re Boloro Global Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2019-2349, -2351 and -2353 (Fed. Cir., July 7, 2020).
Boloro appealed to the PTAB final rejections in three patent applications, which the PTAB ultimately affirmed. On appeal of the...more
DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC, IPR2018-01412, -01525 (June 14, 2019) -
On June 11, 2020, the PTAB designated as precedential its 2019 decision in DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC. The decision concerns the scope of...more
General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, fka United Technologies Corporation, Case No. 19-1012.
On February 24, 2020, we reported on GE’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court....more
On May 27, 2020, the Federal Register published proposed rule changes to trial procedures before the PTAB. The rule changes address and codify the following...more
Esip Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, Appeal No. 2019-1659 (Fed. Cir., May 19, 2020) -
Puzhen petitioned for an IPR against Esip’s patent relating to a combining of germicidal protection and aromatic diffusion in an...more
Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1671 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2020).
Inter partes reexamination was a non-trial procedure that allowed third parties to participate in patent reexamination, and has now been...more
Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1261 (Fed Cir., May 6, 2020). John P. Isacson -
On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order holding that IPR petitioners cannot...more
Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020). -
On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment...more
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1063 (Fed. Cir.. April 30, 2020).
Grit Energy filed a petition for inter partes review against Oren’s U.S. Patent No. 8,585,341 pertaining to systems of...more
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Appeal No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2020).
Argentum and other petitioners filed IPRs against Novartis’ patent related to methods of treating...more
5/1/2020
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Article III ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Novartis ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Standing
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To Call Technologies, LP, et al., 590 U.S. ___, Case No. 18-916 (slip op., April 20, 2020) -
John P. Isacson IPR petitioner Thryv challenged patent owner Click-To-Call’s patent and several claims were...more
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Appeal No. 2019-1262 (Fed. Cir., April 9, 2020) -
The PTAB has never shown an affinity for permitting amendments in IPRs. This appeal marks the second time that a proposed amendment in an IPR was...more
Ex parte Grillo-Lopez, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (April 7, 2020).
On April 7, 2020, The PTAB denied rehearing in Ex parte Grillo-Lopez (August 28, 2019) and issued a precedential decision explaining the denial. ...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., March 23, 2020).
In a 62-page order and accompanying opinions, the Federal Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of the Arthrex decision from October...more
Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Appeal Nos. 2019-1580, -1581 (Fed. Cir., March 5, 2020).
In January of this year, a jury awarded the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) $837,801,178 for Apple’s...more
Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020).
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image...more
3/4/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Samsung ,
Stays ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
General Electric v. United Technologies Corp.
General Electric petitioned for an IPR against a United Technologies patent relating to gas turbine engines. General Electric was unsuccessful against certain claims, and...more
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00860 (February 7, 2020) (Paper No. 15).
Samsung filed two IPR petitions against NuCurrent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,680,960, which related to a multi-layer-multi-turn...more
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Priusa Engineering Corp., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020).
Samsung filed an IPR petition against claims 1-4, 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 owned by Priusa....more
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC et al., Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir., January 30, 2020).
Google filed an IPR against Philips’ patent relating to a method of forming a media presentation on a client device from...more
The Clerk’s Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has just issued its Guide for Oral Argument (January 2020, Version 2.0). The guide includes guidelines for counsel during oral argument, and are as...more
Wasica Finance GmbH et al. v. Schrader Int’l, Inc. et al., C.A. 13-1353-LPS (D. Del. January 14, 2020) (publicly available on January 21, 2020)....more