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
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more
The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more
Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more
The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more
The Federal Circuit’s holding in United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 2023-2171, 2025 WL 339662 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2025) reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision finding no motivation to combine....more
AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. 2023-1997 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 19, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Bryson. DMF owns a patent directed to a compact recessed lighting system that can be installed in a standard...more
The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision deeming an integrated circuit connector patent unpatentable for obviousness, despite concluding that the Board’s claim construction was erroneous. The Court also rejected a...more
Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more
SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC V. SISVEL S.P.A. Before Moore, Schall, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by finding method-claim steps connected by “and” to be conditional and by never...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc. In HD Silicon Solutions LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed an appeal from the USPTO Patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
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
HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc., No. 2023-1397 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Feb. 6, 2025). Opinion by Lourie, joined by Stoll and Cunningham....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...more
Abuse of Process and/or Sanctions – 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, IPR2021-00850, IPR2021-00854, IPR2021-00857 & IPR2021-00860 - Decision...more
In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, a case that focuses on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, claim breadth and the...more