Latest Posts › Appeals

Share:

Federal Circuit Upholds USPTO Authority to Estop Patentees from Obtaining Patent Claims 'Not Patentably Distinct' from Previously...

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously...more

Merger of District Court Dismissals Torpedoes Appeal from PTAB Decision at Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had...more

Federal Circuit: Section 285 Does Not Permit Recovery of Fees Incurred in IPRs Nor Does it Extend to Counsel

The Federal Circuit recently ruled that a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding with related district court litigation cannot recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit further held...more

Federal Circuit: Preliminary Means Preliminary

The Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was within its discretion to reach different conclusions in a Final Written Decision (FWD) than those provided in preliminary guidance regarding...more

Generic Drug Developer Lacks Standing to Appeal Adverse IPR Ruling

The Federal Circuit recently held a generic drug developer lacked Article III standing to appeal an adverse patentability determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) because it failed to prove that it suffered...more

Withholding of Evidence Related to Offer for Sale, Filing False Declaration and Coercion by Patentee Support Finding of...

The Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s finding of inequitable conduct on the basis that appellants and its lawyers intentionally withheld material information involving the on-sale bar from the United States Patent &...more

PTAB: Correction to Claim of Priority Has No Impact Following a Final Written Decision in an IPR

A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently held that a certificate of correction fixing an error in a patent’s claim of priority did not apply retroactively in light of an already issued final written...more

No Estoppel in District Court on Prior Art that Differs Substantively—and in a Manner Germane to Invalidity—from that Asserted in...

A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more

Withdrawal of Petitioner from IPR Proceeding All But Ensures Success in Contingent Motion to Amend

On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more

Federal Circuit: Skepticism of FDA Supports Finding of Nonobviousness and Patent Eligibility Not Within Scope of Appeal of an IPR

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding nonobvious the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”), which are directed to a method of treating cancer. The claims...more

Court Clarifies Meaning of “Ground for Invalidity” for Purposes of Post-IPR Estoppel

A district court judge recently addressed the scope of estoppel for a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Specifically, the court clarified the meaning of a “ground for invalidity” as it relates to the estoppel effect...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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