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
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
IP rights can be vital to the success of medical device companies. Significant legislative changes governing some of these rights may be on the horizon. Senators Coons (Delaware), Durbin (Illinois), Hirono (Hawaii), and...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS - Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of objective...more
On October 26, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Regeneron’s petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of Novartis’s patent U.S. Pat. No. 9,220,631 (“the ’631 patent”), which covers a pre-filled...more
On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for patent claims related to an “artificial valve for repairing a damaged heart valve.” ...more
[co-authors: Patrick Murray, Risa Rahman, and Jae Bandeh] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a finding of non-obviousness of certain claims relating to a device for the detection of skin cancer, finding that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board erred in applying...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decisions, finding that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim terms relating to an...more
Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal Nos. 2019-1749, -1777 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed the construction of the term “human antibodies.” In doing so, the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) recently designated two decisions as precedential concerning the Board’s discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) under § 325(d). The...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition: IPR2020-00480; filed January...more
On June 11, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,141, assigned to Medtronic Vascular, Inc. The Decision instituted the...more
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc. (No. 2017-2463, 1/24/19) (Prost, Moore, Taranto) - Taranto, J. Affirming judgement of no invalidating public use of patents related to methods for correcting spinal column anomalies. Also...more
On November 9, 2018, Cook Medical LLC filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board requesting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,141, assigned to Medtronic Vascular, Inc. The ‘141 Patent is...more
Knobbe Martens Partners Paul Conover, Irfan Lateef, and Curtis Huffmire presented "Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018" at the MedTech Innovation Summit in San Francisco, CA on November 28, 2018. This session...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a medical device company’s failure to...more
This month, we highlight several significant cases including Celgene Corp. v. Hetero Labs Ltd. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. as well as new legislation proposed in both houses of Congress with respect to...more
In a series of recent decisions, the PTAB denied institution on a dozen petitions on related patents because of one problem it identified in the petitioner’s arguments. All of the petitioner’s proposed grounds challenged the...more
Under the U.S. Patent laws, claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim what the inventor understands her invention to be. Up until three years ago, the inquiry for determining indefiniteness was to ask whether...more
With the growing volume of biosimilar and pharma litigation in district courts and before the PTAB, the U.S. International Trade Commission may emerge as another forum for patent holders against imported biosimilars. Section...more
Since 2012, Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) has emerged as one of the most significant new procedures in patent law. An IPR is a proceeding in the Patent Office, and allows a party to challenge an issued patent on certain prior...more
The America Invents Act (AIA) has had a profound impact on patent litigation, particularly surrounding inter partes and other post-grant proceedings. Below, Manish K. Mehta, who handles patent litigation across an array of...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently issued Final Written Decisions in two inter partes reviews filed by Stryker Corporation regarding two related Orthophoenix, LLC patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,153,307...more