News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Claim Construction Patents

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Enabling Anticipatory Prior Art Reference Need Only Enable a Single Embodiment of the Claim

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more

Irwin IP LLP

Seeing Double?  Similar Claim Terms Could Be Trouble  

Irwin IP LLP on

When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Plans for Future Activity Created a Substantial Risk of Future Infringement

Jones Day on

Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more

BCLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of Prosecution Disclaimer in Patent Families

BCLP on

In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., 131 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the prosecution history of one patent in a patent family can limit the scope of claims in a different patent...more

Jones Day

Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did...more

McDermott Will & Emery

X-Ray Vision: Court Sees Through Implicit Claim Construction

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final determination that challenged patent claims were not unpatentable, finding that the Board’s decision relied on an erroneous...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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Lump Sum Settlement Licenses Insufficient to Support $X Royalty Rate...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2023-1101, 5/21/2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Stark) - Moore, C.J. The en banc Court reversed...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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...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

Fish & Richardson

ITC Round-Up: Q1 2025

Fish & Richardson on

The first quarter of 2025 saw the International Trade Commission issue the following public orders addressing a wide variety of issues ranging from evaluation of significance for domestic industry to staying remedial orders...more

Venable LLP

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

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

Jones Day on

In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Affirms Stem Cell Product-by-Process Claims: Lessons in Claim Construction and Inherency from Restem LLV v. Jadi...

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on March 4, 2025, that serves as valuable guidance for product-by-process claims, particularly in the context of inherency in claim construction. In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell,...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

566 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 23

"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