News & Analysis as of

Inventors Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Ownership

McDermott Will & Emery

Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion

McDermott Will & Emery on

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in...more

Jones Day

Shifting Burden Dooms Patent Owner

Jones Day on

In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more

Jones Day

Patent Owner Unable to Change Inventorship During Remand

Jones Day on

At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more

Weintraub Tobin

No Judicial Estoppel In The Case Of The On-Again, Off-Again Patent Inventor

Weintraub Tobin on

The case of Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. raised the question of whether inventors named on a patent can be repeatedly changed as litigation strategy changes. Because of judicial estoppel, the district court said no...more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Jones Day

Reference Reasonably Pertinent to One Problem Deemed Analogous Art

Jones Day on

Section 103 does not, by its terms, define the “art to which [the] subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,” but longstanding precedent couches this question of fact in terms of “whether the art is analogous or not.”...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Fact-Finding Regarding Conception of Invention

Jones Day on

In IPR2014-01198, the PTAB found that the patent owner failed to prove that the patented invention was conceived prior to the date of the prior art, and thus concluded that the patent was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Evidence of Priority to Provisional Application and that Prior Art Was Not Work of Another Defeated Obviousness Challenge in IPR

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Knobbe Martens on

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

11 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