The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to...more
Summary -
Last year the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), under a threat of a vote, accelerated negotiations on an international legal instrument related to intellectual property (IP) and genetic resources...more
10/31/2023
/ Biotechnology ,
Comment Period ,
Deadlines ,
Genetic Materials ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
International Harmonization ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Law Treaty ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
USPTO ,
WIPO
In an ANDA case in the District of Delaware, the court has rejected an obviousness challenge to a patented method of increasing survival in patients having prostate cancer. The court found that early clinical trial results...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed the District of Delaware’s ruling that added an inventor to a patent. The Federal Circuit found that the contribution by the added inventor was not significant when measured against the...more
A judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to prior-art products, even if those products are “cumulative” of prior-art patents or printed publications that were...more
A judge in the Northern District of Georgia has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the complaint failed to meet the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding because the petitioner failed to show the challenged patent was eligible for PGR. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner’s evidence,...more
The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently denied a plaintiff’s bid to overturn a protective order preventing the plaintiff from taking 30(b)(6) deposition testimony on a...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR), in part because an allegedly anticipatory prior art patent lacked an element of what the board determined was a limiting...more
Objective evidence of nonobviousness traces its roots to 19th century case law from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The analysis of such secondary considerations as commercial success, failure of others, and long-felt but...more
A district court has ruled that the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not apply to invalidity grounds that relied on physical products. The court also declined to apply judicial estoppel, notwithstanding...more
A district court has ruled that the exclusive statute for determining venue in patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), did not override the parties prior agreement on where suit could be brought. The court also ruled that transfer...more
A district court has ruled that the statutory estoppel arising from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding does not apply to anticipation and obviousness defenses that rely significantly on a physical device. The court also...more
A petition for inter partes review (IPR) has been denied because the petitioner failed to rebut the patent owner’s claim of priority raised in its preliminary response. In denying institution, the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
An accused infringer in a district court case could not take advantage of a prior claim construction ruling from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving unasserted claims of the same patent. The Patent Trial and...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings based on non-infringement, holding that under the plain text of patent term extension (PTE) statute an accused drug...more
In a remanded inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC had successfully antedated a prior art reference asserted by Petitioner Motorola...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings based on non-infringement, holding that plaintiff’s patent term extension (PTE) did not extend to the accused product because the PTE was...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, holding that obviousness defenses based on a prior art product could not be asserted because a prior art...more
2/3/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Summary Judgment
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has rejected a patent owner’s argument that judicial estoppel should prevent a petitioner from making obviousness arguments in support of its petition for inter partes review (IPR)....more
Chief Judge Saris of the District of Massachusetts has granted-in-part a product manufacturer’s motion seeking summary judgment of claim preclusion based on patentee’s prior assertion of the same patent against a component...more
12/27/2019
/ Claim Preclusion ,
Defense Strategies ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Manufacturers ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Suppliers
Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas has denied a motion seeking foreign discovery from a third party pursuant to the Hague Convention, holding that the movant waited too long to seek such discovery. The...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a patent owner’s time-bar challenge to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, holding that the patent owner failed to provide sufficient details to establish proper service of a complaint for...more
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pleadings ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
Section 101
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted in part a Patent Owner’s motion to strike Petitioner’s Reply for improperly raising new arguments and citing new evidence. The Board, however, declined to throw out the entirety...more
10/14/2019
/ Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petitioner Reply Briefs ,
Prior Art ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
State of the Art Defense