4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Jones Day Talks: PTAB's Busy Docket and What's Changed After SAS Institute
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more
The first quarter of 2025 saw the International Trade Commission issue the following public orders addressing a wide variety of issues ranging from evaluation of significance for domestic industry to staying remedial orders...more
In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more
Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Apr. 30, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Taranto and Stark. Fintiv sued PayPal for infringement of four patents directed to “cloud-based...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more
Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more
AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. 2023-1997 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 19, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Bryson. DMF owns a patent directed to a compact recessed lighting system that can be installed in a standard...more
On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more
Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron...more
Novartis markets and sells a combination therapy of valsartan and sacubitril under the brand name Entresto® for the treatment of various forms of heart failure. MSN submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. [OPINION] (2023-1397, 2/6/2025) (Lourie, Stoll, Cunningham) - Lourie, J. The Board affirmed the Final Written...more
In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more
Cabometyx® (cabozantinib (L)-malate) - Case Name: Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., No. 22-228-RGA, 2024 WL 4491176 (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2024) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Cabometyx®...more
Minocin® (minocycline) - Case Name: Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 21-2636, 2024 WL 4799896 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024) (Kness, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Minocin® (minocycline);...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., et al., No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Jan. 24, 2024). Opinion by Moore, joined by Hughes and Cunningham. Steuben sued Shibuya for infringement of three patents relating to...more
Before Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patent was not invalid for lack of written description for failing to describe the specific infringing embodiment...more
In a Jan. 10 precedential ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the validity of the U.S. patent covering Novartis’s blockbuster drug Entresto was upheld, reversing an earlier decision by the...more
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-2218, -2220, -2221 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Jan. 10, 2025). Opinion by Lourie, joined by Prost and Reyna. The FDA approved a New Drug Application from...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB v. JSR CORP. [OPINION] (2023-2074, 12/4/2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR determination that...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: USPTO Director Vidal to Step Down - On November 12, Under Secretary of...more
The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal...more