The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
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
In Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC, the District of Delaware ruled on summary judgment that ASC is estopped from asserting two obviousness grounds against a patent claim because it raised the same grounds...more
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s policy of permitting claim amendments unrelated to the IPR proceedings when the amended claims also included amendments that respond to a ground of...more
The Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for relying on an argument raised by the petitioner for the first time on remand. In so doing, the court held that the...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified that the scope of IPR estoppel in district courts includes prior art grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a petition for inter partes review (IPR), reversing...more
The Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., which considered whether Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs) authority to issue decisions in inter partes reviews on behalf of the executive branch is...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
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
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
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) by the Secretary of Commerce violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court then...more
11/4/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Power of Appointment ,
Remand ,
Removal ,
Secretary of Commerce ,
Vacated
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
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 (the “’079 Patent”) on the grounds that the inter partes review (IPR) petition was time-barred as a result of a merger between the...more
The Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review (IPR) decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) incorrectly applied the standard for an inventor to prove diligence in reducing the invention to...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
1/28/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Standing
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
1/14/2019
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the final written decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) panel in six related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Board held in those proceedings that (1) a...more
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of standing an appeal filed by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner of a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held two...more
8/30/2018
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Dismissals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Prior Art ,
Standing
• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
• In SAS...more
5/1/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO