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
Medical device and diagnostics companies and laboratories should anticipate significant legal, regulatory and market changes in 2020 that will have a lasting impact on the industry. From revisions to how the government...more
1/8/2020
/ Acquisitions ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Biotechnology ,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ,
CFIUS ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Digital Health ,
EU ,
Export Controls ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ,
Innovation ,
Life Sciences ,
Machine Learning ,
Medical Devices ,
Mergers ,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, finding that the PTAB applied the wrong standard when it presumed there was a nexus...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
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of patents relating to printer technology, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Patent Owner’s motion to compel testimony over Petitioner’s arguments that the information...more
12/27/2019
/ Attorney Communications ,
Discovery ,
FRCP 26 ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Testimony ,
Work-Product Doctrine
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 (PTAB) recently issued an Order that illustrates the circumstances in which a party may obtain additional discovery in an inter partes review (IPR). In Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical...more
11/11/2019
/ Additional Discovery ,
Cross Examination ,
Discovery ,
Document Productions ,
Expert Witness ,
Garmin Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Scope of Discovery Requests
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
A district court has denied a request to amend patent infringement contentions to add claims obtained through ex parte reexamination after the case had been substantially narrowed through a parallel inter partes review (IPR)...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected a patent owner’s argument that a forum selection clause found in a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) barred the Board from instituting a petition for inter partes review...more
10/21/2019
/ Equitable Estoppel ,
Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion to Transfer ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Samsung
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 recently overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) determination that claims covering a cancer treatment method were obvious.
The patent at issue is directed to a method of treating...more
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.
In September...more
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
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
9/9/2019
/ Appeals ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Disclaimers ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Vacated
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
8/20/2019
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Vacated
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) panel has determined that emailing a proposed amended complaint is not “service of a complaint” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
On January 23, 2018, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc....more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that neither the exhaustion nor permissible repair doctrines allow manufacture of new replacement components covered by design patents.
The Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) sued Ford...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently considered whether to stay an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the patent was also the subject of a parallel inter partes review (IPR).
On September 11...more
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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied a petitioner’s request for inter partes review (IPR) finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a Petitioner’s request for institution of inter partes review (IPR) of claims that were added during ex parte reexamination because it found the IPR petitions were time-barred...more