News & Analysis as of

Article III Standing Patents

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Without Concrete Evidence of Potential Infringement Liability, Petitioner Lacked Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written...

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

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Constitutional Standing Not Required for 337 Investigations

While a complainant does not need to have constitutional standing to bring a complaint in the International Trade Commission (ITC), at least one complainant must be the owner or exclusive licensee of the underlying asserted...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the language used in an invention assignment clause was subject to more than one reasonable...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed....

Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Best Medical Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th...

Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Knobbe Martens

Failure to Vacate Adverse Standing Decision Upon Settlement Stops Subsequent Suits

Knobbe Martens on

UNILOC USA, INC. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Failure to vacate an adverse ruling regarding a lack of standing when...more

Hudnell Law Group

Fifth Circuit Denies Patent Owners’ Attempt To Formalize PTAB’s Discretionary Denials

Hudnell Law Group on

In 2021, an organization of patent owners and various patent-holding companies sued the USPTO in the Eastern District of Texas.  The patent owners sought to force the USPTO Director to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more

Knobbe Martens

It Is Not Controversial: Factual and Legal Specificity Needed in Standing Dismissals

Knobbe Martens on

MITEK SYS., INC. V. UNITED SERVS. AUTO. ASS’N - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary:  Declaratory judgment plaintiffs must identify...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

The Federal Circuit Finds IPR Petitioner Has Standing

On December 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued another decision addressing an appellant’s standing to appeal inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the PTAB. The patent community has seen several opinions over the last...more

Jones Day

Expired Patents Can Be Challenged

Jones Day on

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the PTAB has jurisdiction over expired patents, and patent owners may need to defend their expired patents in inter partes review. The PTAB recently reiterated this in Apple, Inc. v....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Shots Fired: Challenger Must Have Requisite Standing Before Appealing Unfavorable IPR Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in the context of an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) decision, that the appellant had Article III standing and affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board)...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more

Troutman Pepper

High Court TransUnion Ruling May Enhance PTAB Autonomy

Troutman Pepper on

Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez is not related to either patent or administrative law, its effects on constitutional standing are broad-reaching and may insulate the Patent Trial and...more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

Knobbe Martens on

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No More Bites at the Apple: Imminent and Non-Speculative Standing Still Required

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing for Second Bite at the Apple

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

When Is Less Really More for a Patent Licensee?

In Apple v. Qualcomm, Federal Circuit Finds No Standing to Challenge Validity of a Few Patents When Many Were Licensed - The development timeline for small-molecule drugs and biologics is lengthy, estimated to take...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

The Federal Circuit Provides New Guidance for Patent Licensees Wishing to Challenge the Licensed Patent’s Validity

The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated handed down a decision on April 7, 2021 that provides guidance on the determination of standing for patent licensees who wish to contest the validity of a patent or...more

Haug Partners LLP

Standing to Appeal Post-Grant Proceedings: A Brief Review of Recent Federal Circuit Opinions

Haug Partners LLP on

On April 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit decided Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., where it held that Apple lacked standing to appeal the final written decisions in two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the U.S. Patent...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir....

Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more

Knobbe Martens

If You Buy the Whole Company, You Can Fight Its Legal Battles

Knobbe Martens on

MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC. Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The purchaser or assignee of all assets and interests of the requester of inter...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (January 4-8): Mooting your opponent’s appeal

Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions.  This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III—always a fun topic.  Below we provide our usual...more

141 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"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