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
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Key Takeaways: - The Director, in consultation with at least three APJs, will now decide the discretionary denial question, rather than having the merits panel decide the issue. - Discretionary denial will have separate...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
In Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corporation, Fed. Cir., No. 18-01559, the Federal Circuit extended the inability to stand behind 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity to patents owned by individual states, such that they...more
On April 15, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, leaving intact the Federal Circuit’s ruling that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes reviews. See Saint...more
As strategies for managing multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the same or related patents evolve, so does the complexity of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel prevents a party from having to re-litigate issues that...more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Akron, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of various patents owned by Allergan, Inc., which the Board instituted. One week before the scheduled IPR...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more
The USPTO has published a final rule, changing the claim construction standard applied during post-grant proceedings (inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business methods reviews) before the Office’s Patent...more
On July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity is not available as a defense in IPR. Allergan Pharmaceuticals owned patents that it had asserted in litigation against various generic...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided whether tribal sovereign immunity required termination of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). At the PTAB, Mylan...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Tribal sovereign immunity does not shield Indian Tribe owned patents from IPR. ...more
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In so holding, the...more
The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III standing in Personal Audio,...more
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) violates the Constitution by extinguishing patent rights...more
In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more
The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings conducted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the America Invents Act. The Court’s...more
The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent Office to determine the validity of existing patents – is unconstitutional in Oil...more
Although arguably foreshadowed, some may be surprised to learn that a party with the right to challenge the validity of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) may not have the right to appeal an...more
On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more
During the first three years of implementing the America Invents Act (AIA), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision-making created a perception that a patent owner’s ability to amend claims during a post-grant...more
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ?TTAB? will implement new rules on January 14, 2017, that will apply to all inter partes proceedings (oppositions, cancellations, concurrent use) and ex parte appeals that are pending on,...more
Many of the complaints from patent holders over the PTO's inter partes review process under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (codified in pertinent part at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319) stem from how the Office has implemented...more
McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more