The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
On July 9, 2024, Director Vidal reversed and remanded a denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) relating to three Spin Master patents. See Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR Nos. 2023-01339, 2023-01348,...more
The Situation: Senate Bill 150 ("S.B. 150")—the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2023—unanimously passed the Senate and would amend 35 U.S.C. § 272(e) to limit, under certain circumstances, the number of patents...more
7/30/2024
/ Biosimilars ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Proposed Legislation ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform
Director Vidal recently vacated three discretionary denials of institution after finding that the three petitioners did not have a “significant relationship” with a prior petitioner. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Neo...more
The Federal Circuit denied Cellect, LLC's petition for rehearing en banc of the In re Cellect case, which held that the expiration of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes is the expiration date...more
1/26/2024
/ En Banc Review ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing
USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently designated precedential section II.E.3 of Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc. and clarified that the priority analysis for an AIA reference patent as prior art is different than for a...more
The Situation: On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") released a proposed framework for federal agencies regarding the exercise of the government's march-in rights for federally...more
12/20/2023
/ Bayh-Dole Act ,
Biotechnology ,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ,
Drug Pricing ,
Health and Safety ,
Healthcare ,
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Life Sciences ,
March-in-Rights ,
NIST ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Prescription Drugs
In its second-ever Final Written Decision in a derivation proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) determined that a patent application for a biocidal composition and method of producing said biocidal...more
The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the disclaimer is made....more
The PTAB recently issued a rare decision instituting a derivation proceeding, in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, DER2017-00031 (“GHC”). The GHC institution decision provides several lessons for future petitioners...more
A podcast from JAMS featuring Steven Bauer and Sarah Geers on how ADR can play a pivotal role in resolving IP-related disputes in the life sciences industry -
In this podcast, Steven Bauer, mediator and arbitrator at...more
4/1/2022
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitrators ,
Dispute Resolution ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inventors ,
Life Sciences ,
Mediation ,
Mediators ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Trade Secrets
The case relates to so-called "skinny labels," in which the filer of an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") seeks FDA approval to market a generic version of a branded drug, but "carves out" from its label certain...more
1/21/2022
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Inducement ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Life Sciences ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs
In Baker Hughes Oilfield v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by finding certain instituted claims obvious on grounds it had indicated in its institution that...more
Background -
On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 18-1976, in favor of GSK, finding that Teva was liable for inducing infringement of GSK's patent....more
9/21/2021
/ Generic Drugs ,
GlaxoSmithKline ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Induced Infringement ,
JMOL ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Product Labels ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
A recent post-grant review decision once again reminds patentees of the increasing scrutiny that claims are facing under the written description and enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a). In this case,...more
Claims added or amended during inter partes review (“IPR”) do not become part of a patent until the Patent Office officially says so by issuing an IPR certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). The patentee needs more than a Final...more
On April 11, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a Boardside Chat webinar to discuss remote hearings in AIA trials and ex parte appeals. The discussion featured panelists Lead judges Georgianna Braden and...more
Partners Matt Johnson and Sarah Geers talk about former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu's impact on the PTAB, and what we might expect from a new director under the Biden Administration. They also comment on why patent litigation...more