News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Litigation Patents Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

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

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

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

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

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - April 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: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine 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

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

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

Jones Day

PTAB Announces a Bifurcated Process for Consideration of IPR and PGR Petitions

Jones Day on

A new interim process for the acting director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review ("IPR") or a post-grant review ("PGR") was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary...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

Warner Norcross + Judd

It’s Confirmed: Discretionary Denials Will Likely be on the Rise Following USPTO’s New Guidance Following Withdrawal of Fintiv...

Following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) decision to rescind the Fintiv Memo on Feb. 28, 2025, the result was that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would have greater flexibility in exercising its...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Further Shifts in Patent Office Guidance for Discretionary Denials Signal Uphill Battles for Patent Challengers

On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new...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

Kilpatrick

Pre-Institution Overhaul: Unpacking the PTAB’s New Briefing Procedures

Kilpatrick on

Hot on the heels of rescinding former Director Vidal’s June 2022 memo providing guidance on discretionary denials, Acting Director of the USPTO, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a memo yesterday outlining new “Interim Processes...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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Focus on Fintiv: Shift in Patent Office Guidance for Discretionary Denials of Patent Challenges

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal...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

190 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 8

"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