News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Prior Art Statutory Interpretation

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2024 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Lynk to the Past: Published Applications Are Prior Art as of Filing Date

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding challenged claims invalid based on a published patent application that, in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, was...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

Jones Day on

Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (September 27-October 1): IPRs, Ex Parte Reexams, and the APA

Last week the Federal Circuit judges geared up for their October argument session and perhaps enjoyed the beautiful fall weather in Washington. But the Court still found time to issue a dozen decisions in a wide range of...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

“Anything Goes” – Federal Circuit Says PTAB Can Use Any Means to Knock Out Substitute Claims (Uniloc v. Hulu: Part 2)

Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more

Jones Day

District Court Extends IPR Estoppel To Non-Petitioned Invalidity Grounds

Jones Day on

Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend After Aqua Products

Knobbe Martens on

In Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01613, Paper 118 (Feb. 26, 2018), the PTAB granted the patent owner Willis Electric’s motion to amend a claim directed to lighted artificial trees. This decision...more

9 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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