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
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
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
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
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
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
Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2018-2024, -2025 (Fed. Cir. December 18, 2019).
SRAM owned two patents pertaining to bicycle chainrings, which are toothed disks that engage bicycle chains. Fox filed inter...more
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
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) -
Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more
11/4/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
Appointments Clause ,
Article II ,
Confirmation Proceedings ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Power of Appointment ,
Principle Officers ,
Remand ,
Secretary of Commerce ,
Senate Confirmation Hearings ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Vacated
On October 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a 22-page updated guidance document on subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101. Subject matter eligibility is becoming increasingly important in the...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