Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting...more
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more
On June 12, the nominee for USPTO Director John Squires was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 20-2. His nomination has been placed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar and will proceed to a floor vote....more
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...more
INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...more
DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC - Before Moore, Clevenger and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review...more
On June 26, 2025, Sarepta Therapeutics filed IPR2025-01194, challenging as obvious claims 3-6 of Genzyme’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,542 (“the ’542 patent), and IPR2025-01195 challenging claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No....more
In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Nick Gallo, and Bryan Smith explore the evolving landscape of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and...more
INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. - Before Moore, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Speculative plans for potentially infringing activity are insufficient to...more
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more
Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a series of discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) petitions, based on a new factor, the “settled expectations” of the Patent Owner....more
A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more
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
The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in...more
As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more
Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more
On June 2, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued decisions denying institution of Samsung Bioepis’s IPR2025-00176 and Formycon’s IPR2025-00233 against claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, 20, 22–36, 39–42, 44, 45, and...more
On June 18, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Stewart issued a discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, granting the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial...more
Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1674, -1701 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 16, 2025). Per curiam opinion, before Louri, Reyna, and Hughes. Ancora owns a patent directed to restricting unauthorized use of...more
Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more
On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more
Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more
iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...more
Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1904, -1925 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a jury decision awarding...more