News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Litigation Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Appeals

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 18, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 18, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Recentive sued Fox for infringing four patents that...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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.

Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Fintiv Guidelines for Post-Grant Proceedings Involving Parallel District Court Litigation

On March 24, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) released new guidance that clarifies application of the Fintiv factors when reviewing validity challenges simultaneously asserted at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Implements Bifurcated Review Process for PTAB Petitions Under New Policy

Womble Bond Dickinson on

USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart announced that she will personally decide whether to deny each petition challenging a patent on discretionary grounds before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board evaluates the merits....more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

New USPTO Processes Put in Place Regarding PTAB Institution Decisions

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced new interim procedures for handling discretionary denials of post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  These changes are...more

WilmerHale

USPTO Issues Memo on Interim Process for PTAB Discretionary Denial Evaluation

WilmerHale on

On March 26, 2025, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Coke Morgan Stewart issued a memorandum that makes several significant...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Pivot At The PTAB: The Acting Director Bifurcates Review

With two memoranda this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has made significant changes to trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Those trials—introduced in 2012 by the Leahy-Smith...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Palette of Evidence: PTAB Must Consider Entire Record to Determine Prior Art Status

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability determination, finding that the Board failed to consider the entire record regarding the prior art status of a...more

Knobbe Martens

IPR Standing Arguments Not Presented to the Board Are Forfeited

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial And Appeal Board. A patent owner forfeits its argument that an IPR petitioner lacks standing under 35 U.S.C....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Sometimes important contributions to innovation can come from the mundane rather than the extraordinary. One (perhaps apocryphal) example comes from the story of the early development of television by Philo Farnsworth (the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTO Reverts to Prior Post-Grant Guidelines for Cases Involving Parallel District Court Litigation

McDermott Will & Emery on

On February 28, 2025, the acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that the agency will revert to previous guidelines for discretionary denials of petitions for post-grant proceedings where there is...more

ArentFox Schiff

Federal Circuit Refuses to Extend IPR Estoppel to Unadjudicated Patent Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that patentees in district court are not collaterally estopped from asserting claims that were not immaterially different...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

USPTO Withdraws Fintiv Memo on Discretionary Denials in Post-Grant Proceedings

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application...more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Discretionary Denials May be on the Rise Following PTAB’s Decision to Withdraw Fintiv Memo

On Feb. 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rescinded a memorandum issued by former Director Kathy Vidal (the “Fintiv Memo”), which, since June 21, 2022, provided guidance on when the Patent Trial and...more

Ropes & Gray LLP

USPTO Rescinds Interim Guidance on Discretionary Denials

Ropes & Gray LLP on

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rescinded its June 21, 2022 Memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

USPTO Rescinds Memo Addressing PTAB Discretionary Denial Procedures

On Friday, the USPTO rescinded its June 21, 2022, memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Fintiv memo”). The USPTO notice makes...more

Hudnell Law Group

Differing Burdens of Proof Limits Estoppel Effect of PTAB Final Written Decision

Hudnell Law Group on

On February 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., reversing and remanding a district court ruling that had dismissed Kroy’s patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Claim Assertion After PTAB Unpatentability Decisions

On February 10, the Federal Circuit held in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. that a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluding that certain claims are unpatentable does not prevent the...more

Knobbe Martens

Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply When the Prior Proceeding Applies a Lower Burden of Proof

Knobbe Martens on

Because there are different burdens of proof in IPRs and district court, collateral estoppel does not preclude a patent owner from asserting claims that are immaterially different from claims canceled in an IPR....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Case: Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon Inc.

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

Knobbe Martens

Every Word Counts: Specification Naming Conventions Can Limit Claim Scope

Knobbe Martens on

A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more

63 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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