Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found that...more
In 2021, following the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, the PTO issued an interim procedure for requesting Director Review. The PTO has now issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) formalizing the Director Review...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director vacated Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that presented a sua sponte construction of a claim term in dispute, holding that the parties were not...more
On March 13, 2024, Regeneron appealed the PTAB Board’s (“the Board”) recent Final Written Decisions (“FWDs”) that found claims of two Regeneron patents related to EYLEA® (aflibercept) unpatentable....more
On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360...more
Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed one and vacated another Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in which the PTAB determined that Weber Inc. (“Weber”) failed to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm. Inc. addressed a unique situation in November 2023 whereby the Patent Trial and Appeal Board failed to issue its Final Written Decision...more
EcoFactor, Inc. is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753, titled “System, Method and Apparatus for Just-In-Time Conditioning Using a Thermostat,” which focuses on optimizing climate control systems, particularly HVAC...more
In our PTAB Spotlight Series, attorneys will share their valuable insights on PTAB practice today, the challenges and opportunities clients face, and the trends practitioners should follow....more
On February 14, 2024, Seagen requested director review of the PTAB’s January 16th Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in PGR2021-00030 finding antibody-drug conjugate claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,808,039 (the “’039 patent”)...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
On February 12, 2024, Chugai, Genentech, and Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche) filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss CAFC Appeals 24-1111 and 24-1115, appealing the Final Written Decisions (FWDs) in IPR2022-00578 and IPR2022-00579,...more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
Please see Charts below for more information....more
In 2023, Fintiv—the precedential Order issued in 2020 that established a six-factor framework that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) applies when evaluating whether to exercise its discretion to institute an America...more
RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Phillip Morris Products S.A., No. 2022-1862 (Fed. Cir. February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is...more
Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trustees v. United States, Appeal No. 2022-2248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the scope of a provision of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (35...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more