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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020) -
On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on...more
On January 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the following cases...more
1/14/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Hewlett-Packard ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101
Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019) -
Yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
12/12/2019
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
The America Invents Act (AIA) ushered in an era of Patent Office trials to adjudicate the validity of issued patents. The AIA, however, created an additional, lesser used, avenue to address patent validity. This procedure is...more
Honeywell Int’l v. Arkema, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir., October 1, 2019) -
Arkema filed two petitions for post-grant review of a Honeywell patent pertaining to fluoroalkene compounds used in refrigerator...more
GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754 (Precedential Opinion Panel, August 23, 2019) -
Section 315(b) of Title 35 prohibits institution of an IPR where the petition is filed more than one year after service of a...more
MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2017-2292 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2019) -
MTD had a patent for steering and driving systems for zero turn radius vehicles, such as lawn mowers. The patent was challenged in IPR, where...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) -
Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
8/1/2019
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Retroactive Application
July of 2019 has been an active month for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB issued a Trial Practice Guide Update that addresses: The July 2019 Update can be accessed on the PTAB website....more
A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives recently released a framework for amending Section 101. The group includes Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), as well as Representative Doug...more
4/25/2019
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Innovation Patent ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Legislation ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Rulemaking Process ,
Section 101
The Supreme Court earlier this decade issued several decisions concerning patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These decisions have resulted in the invalidation of patents over concerns that the patents cover and preempt...more
The Federal Circuit just issued a decision that confirms its stance on Article III standing for appeals from inter partes reviews (IPRs), making it tougher for unsuccessful IPR petitioners to obtain judicial review of U.S....more
2/8/2019
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Biosimilars ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Momenta ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit recently issued a pair of decisions concerning the Gilead doctrine, which allowed later-issuing patents to be obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) references against earlier-issuing patents....more
12/11/2018
/ Double Patent ,
Gilead Sciences ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents