Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more

Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Mfg. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more

DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Sometimes important contributions to innovation can come from the mundane rather than the extraordinary. One (perhaps apocryphal) example comes from the story of the early development of television by Philo Farnsworth (the...more

Novartis Pharma AG v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, federal courts (including the Federal Circuit) are compelled under the Administrative Procedures Act to review factual determinations by the U.S. Patent and...more

United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Zealous advocacy is a hallmark of adversarial proceedings, whether in district court or before the USPTO, where the opportunities for such advocacy have multiplied with the establishment by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act...more

Cardiovalve Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Cardiovalve Ltd....more

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more

Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in...more

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

The importance of claim construction, and how construing the same term facing a challenge based on different prior art in separate inter partes review proceedings can result in contrary findings on invalidity, was illustrated...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

One of the many changes introduced into U.S. patent law by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were provisions for post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR).  There have been thousands of these proceedings...more

Jager Pro, Inc. v. W-W Manufacturing Co. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more

Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an unsuccessful challenger in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding based on failure to satisfy the standing requirements for appeal in Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v....more

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

In what was an otherwise run-of-the-mill affirmance of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (albeit somewhat noteworthy in affirming the Board's determination that the challenged claims were not invalid),...more

USPTO Shares Data on Multiple IPR Challenges

One of the many criticisms of the post-grant review proceedings instituted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, both post-grant review (PGR) available within 9 months of patent grant based on all provisions of the Patent...more

Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The Federal Circuit reviewed the latest decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims 3-6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,548,019 are obvious, in Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere,...more

SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University (Fed. Cir. 2023)

One of the wonderful (as in, it makes one wonder) and frustrating (which needs no explanation) aspects of patent law is that just when you think a question is settled it either isn't or the conventional interpretation is...more

Senator Coons And Co-Sponsors Introduce the PREVAIL Act

In addition to his efforts regarding patent subject matter eligibility law (see "Senate Bill Proposed to Provide Subject Matter Eligibility Solution", co-sponsored with Senator Tillis), Senator Coons, joined by Senators...more

Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTx, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

"This application claims priority to [properly identified earlier-filed application, the disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein in its entirety" is a phrase commonly found in patents and patent applications as...more

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) Final Written Decision (FWD) in an inter partes review (IPR) that Mylan Pharmaceuticals failed to show the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 were...more

Oral Arguments Rescheduled in CRISPR Interferences

On August 16th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rescheduled back-to-back oral hearings for interferences between ToolGen Inc. (Senior Party) and Junior Party The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology...more

Click-to-Call Technologies LP v. Ingenio, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

For most of the past decade, the Supreme Court has been marking out the metes and bounds of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's execution of the post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,...more

LSI Corp. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota (Fed. Cir. 2022)

A little more than three years ago, the Federal Circuit rejected the University of Minnesota's contention that LSI was barred from bringing (and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board barred from hearing) an inter partes review of...more

American National Manufacturing v. Sleep Number Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

The Federal Circuit today appealed determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review in American National Manufacturing v. Sleep Number Corp., in an opinion by Judge Cunningham.  The opinion...more

University of Massachusetts v. L'Oreal S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

In reviewing (and reversing) the District Court's claim construction in University of Massachusetts v. L'Oreal S.A., the Federal Circuit availed itself of both the disclosure in the specification and the prosecution history...more

Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022)

Last month in Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determinations in six inter partes review proceedings that invalidated the challenged claims for being...more

122 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide