News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Litigation Claim Construction Patents

Knobbe Martens

Reissue Applications Are Bound by the Scope of the Claims as Written, Not as Intended

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE KOSTIC - Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. When considering whether a reissue claim broadens the scope of the original patent, the PTAB determines the actual scope...more

Knobbe Martens

No Takebacks: The High Bar for Departing From Patent Lexicography

Knobbe Martens on

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Once the high threshold for lexicography is met, there must be a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - June 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Humira® (adalimumab) / Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto) / Cyltezo® (adalimumab-adbm) / Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz) /...

Venable LLP on

Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - June 2025

Venable LLP on

Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Fish & Richardson

Texas Round-Up: May 2025

Fish & Richardson on

Below are summaries of two claim construction opinions issued out of the Eastern District of Texas in May 2025....more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Implicit And Incorrect Claim Construction Of “Between 1 And 10”

A&O Shearman on

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 16, 2025

Alston & Bird on

The Regents of the University of California, et al. v. The Broad Institute, Inc., et al., Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) May 12, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Hughes and Cunningham....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025) - Update

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. on Monday. The opinion reviewed the...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - May 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Claims May Bend But Are Not Broken: Judge Locke Rejects Indefiniteness Arguments in Fiber Optic Cables Case

In a patent-infringement case involving fiber-optic-cable assemblies, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke (E.D.N.Y.) recently rejected defendants’ arguments that two terms in the patent claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal holdings, Inc.

Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that the terms “payment...more

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Transatlantic Terminology: Skilled Artisan Could Equate UK, US Word Meanings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as...more

Knobbe Martens

No Error: The Board Committed No Procedural Error by Relying on Evidence Outside of the Prior Art Reference

Knobbe Martens on

SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) / Jubbonti® / Wyost® (denosumab-bbdz) / Ospomyv™ / Xbryk™ (denosumab-dssb) / Stoboclo®...

Venable LLP on

Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more

Jones Day

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day on

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more

Alston & Bird

Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter | April 2025

Alston & Bird on

Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that written description is required for a preamble, labor or...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2024 Federal Circuit Case Summaries - Intellectual Property: Year End Report

We are excited to present the second edition of Sheppard Mullin’s “Year in Review” report, which provides a comprehensive summary of the key precedential Federal Circuit decisions related to patent law in 2024. Building on...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

“Not That Kind of Memory Storage – Judge Oetken Grants Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement”

On March 31, 2025, Judge Oetken granted summary judgment for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Samsung”) in an infringement suit brought against it by Dynamics Inc. (“Dynamics”). Dynamics Inc v....more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

96 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide