Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
On February 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., where the Court held that a “a prior final written decision of the [PTAB] of unpatentability on separate...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
LSI and Ericsson petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several patents owned by the University of Minnesota (UMN). UMN moved to dismiss each IPR based on state sovereign immunity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTL. v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC. Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Summary: The PTAB has the discretion to not institute inter partes...more
A Complaint Identifying Infringing Products and the Patents Allegedly Infringed, Accompanied by Statements that the Products Meet All Elements of at Least One Claim of the Asserted Patents, May be Sufficient to Meet the...more
The University of Minnesota (UMinn) and Toyota Motor Corp. (Toyota) co-own U.S. Patent 8,394,618 (the ’618 patent). After Reactive Surfaces Ltd. filed a petition for IPR of the ’618 patent, UMinn and Toyota filed a motion to...more
The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,...more
In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more