The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and...more
Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more
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
DuPont petitioned for inter partes review of Synvina’s patent, which was directed to a method of oxidizing a chemical using a specific temperature range, pressure range, catalyst, and solvent. The prior art disclosed the...more
On November 26, 2018, the PTAB entered its Final Written Decision in Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., Case IPR2017-01391, denying Patent Owner Alacritech, Inc.’s Motion to Amend in the inter partes review of certain claims of...more
The Federal Circuit issued the fifth precedential decision involving the one year time-bar 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) since the issue became reviewable earlier this year in the wake of Wi-Fi One....more
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Aqua Products, a deeply fractured court provides a glimpse into the perspectives that some of the judges have on post-grant practice at the...more
Today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a fractured Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sitting en banc decided to flip the burden of persuasion onto petitioners in IPR proceedings to show that an amendment is not...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more
“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more
On January 9, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix lacked standing to appeal the final written decision of nonobviousness from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) because Phigenix did not offer sufficient...more
On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more
In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more
Reaffirming the petitioner’s burden of proof codified in 35 USC § 316(e), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) finding the patent owner’s...more
On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more