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
On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...more
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
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
An argument could be made that one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. patent law in the last thirty years was Dickinson v. Zurko. In that case the Court held that the Federal Circuit was bound by the...more
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
Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more
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
On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...more
On May 22, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s (Board) Final Written Decisions in Pfizer’s IPR2021-00925 and IPR2021-00926 finding all challenged claims of uniQure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,982,248 (“the ’248 patent”) unpatentable...more
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
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
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) May 23, 2025). En banc opinion by Moore, joined by Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by...more
In a precedential opinion entered on May 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict invalidating claims of two patents for anticipation and obviousness over the prior art....more
On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. (“ERGO Baby”). ...more
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more
This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more
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
On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more
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
In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more
Prior art patents and publications have long been the primary source for anticipation and obviousness assertions by defendants in IP litigation. System art—an actual system or device—is a less common source of prior art due...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of statutory estoppel that applies in District Court after the PTAB issues a final written decision in a related inter partes review (IPR). Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No....more
On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...more