In a recent appeal from the PTAB, the Federal Circuit held that claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the patent and prior art incorporated the same reference to describe a process for making the claimed...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
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
In a recent decision issued in Indivior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the PTAB that a limitation to range of polymer weight percentages lacked written description support...more
The Federal Circuit recently held certain method of treatment claims patent eligible under step one of Alice, reversing a district court’s judgment on the pleadings. In that same case, the Federal Circuit upheld the district...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating three patents on anticipation grounds, finding the district court improperly relied on disclosures from multiple...more
3/2/2020
/ Anticipation ,
Disclosure ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Treatment Method Patents
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (’842 Patent) and ordered the PTAB to reconsider whether the patent should have been disqualified from covered...more
10/17/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 103 ,
Technology
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 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
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
The Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,921 (the “’921 Patent”) were not shown to be obvious, finding that the PTAB applied the...more
9/28/2018
/ Article III ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Reversal ,
Standing
On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determining that there was no interference in fact between the University of California’s (“UC”) U.S. Patent...more
9/24/2018
/ Appeals ,
CRISPR ,
Interference Claims ,
Life Sciences ,
Nonobvious ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Standard of Review ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
University of California
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
On February 15, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated a patent interference between the Broad Institute and the University of California, finding the parties’ respective claims to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and...more