A Judicial Perspective on Using Technology at Oral Argument | Judge John Owens | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sparked debate following a recent ruling on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) application of estoppel provisions in invalidating amended claims in inter partes...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision overturning the long-standing obviousness test for design patents could have wide-ranging implications for design patent owners. The en banc decision in LKQ Corp. et al v. GM Global...more
Before Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more
On Tuesday, the en banc Federal Circuit released its highly anticipated decision in LKQ v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, rejecting as “improperly rigid” the previous standard for evaluating whether a design patent is...more
In a recent en banc panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled a decades-old test for obviousness of design patents. Reasoning that the old test was “improperly rigid,” the Federal Circuit...more
On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision (full court, instead of the typical three-judge panel) in LKQ Corp. et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturning the long-standing obviousness test...more
In 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued three opinions regarding U.S. design patents. The three 2023 opinions are Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., LKQ...more
Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A., Appeal No. 2022-1165 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit upheld an application by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of its Pilot Program...more
For the first time in over five years, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be hearing a patent case en banc. The Court has agreed to hear LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, which...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm. Background - Qualcomm sued...more
The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept....more
Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2018-1400 et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2020)- The only precedential decision this week was a modified panel decision of a prior precedential opinion following a...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week a Federal Circuit panel in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC issued an important decision regarding inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on two questions concerning contingent motions to...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly...more
Since arriving at the USPTO, Director Iancu has tried to bring clear messages and consistency to the Office. For purposes of this article, we concentrate on the new POP procedures for Board case law and rules, and how the...more
On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the parties’ petition for an en banc rehearing in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140....more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam Order in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., denying a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by Appellant...more
Late in the day on December 16, 2019, three different petitions asked the full Federal Circuit to overturn a panel’s decision that members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were appointed in violation of the...more
Federal Circuit Determines Time-Barred Petitioner Joined to an IPR Has Appellate Standing - In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech., Appeal Nos. 2017-2088, -2089, -2091, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more