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
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
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
M & K HOLDINGS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Moore, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Title-searchable publications shared on a prominent standards-setting...more
VIDSTREAM LLC V. TWITTER, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of a prior art reference’s publication date submitted after an IPR petition may be...more
Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds - In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company , Appeal No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit held that a party...more
274-1 Federal Circuit Revisits American Axle & Manufacturing; Case Remanded to Determine if One of the “Hooke’s Law” Claims is Ineligible under Other Theories of Eligibility - The Federal Circuit recently issued a modified...more
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions - In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
2019 was another milestone year in intellectual property law that resulted in hundreds of decisions by the courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that will affect your company’s litigation, patent prosecution or...more
To amend challenged claims during an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the patent owner must show that the proposed amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability at issue in the IPR trial. But in a recent final written decision...more
This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of various substantive orders issued in pending cases....more
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the circumstances wherein an inter partes review petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in Mayne Pharma Int'l v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., decided earlier this...more
On April 4, 2019, Chief Judge Patti Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd. that a final determination of invalidity in inter...more
When the America Invents Act of 2011 ushered in a number of new administrative procedures for challenging issued patents, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries at first seemed largely unconcerned. Originally...more
Addressing the standard for establishing whether a prior art reference qualifies as a “printed publication,” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR), finding that the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) reversed its previous decision invalidating claims of a patent covering a coaxial cable connector after the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same...more
Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more
Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of obviousness based on a flexible approach and further clarified the appropriate evaluation of secondary considerations...more
Last week, in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of invalidity in an inter partes review that relied on “common sense” to supply a claim limitation that was...more
One source of prior art commonly relied on in inter partes review proceedings is the “Wayback Machine.” The Wayback Machine is an internet archive of webpages that are browsed by crawler programs and then stored and preserved...more
Patent owners continue to express frustration at the inability to amend claims during inter partes review proceedings (IPRs). IPRs are patent validity challenges conducted at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals...more
In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) agreed with the petitioner that the original challenged claims were unpatentable but at the same time granted the patent owner’s motion to amend,...more
Two years after the creation of the America Invents Act post-grant proceedings, many patent owners are facing an uphill battle when attempting to defend their intellectual property before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more