News & Analysis as of

Judicial Review Patents

Open Court Principle Means No Secret Proceedings If They Would Directly Affect a Competitor's Rights

by Bennett Jones LLP on

Equip: IP Litigation Case of the Week - Courts in Canada are presumed to be open and accessible to the public. Although a party’s commercial interests can be protected, a court will not grant a confidentiality order if...more

Preemption is “Part and Parcel” of the §101; But Lack of Preemption Does Not Necessarily Establish Patentability

In Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, [2016-1502] (August 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that the US Postal Service had standing to challenge Return Mails patents in an CBMR, and...more

Federal Circuit Provides More Guidance On Biosimilar Patent Litigation

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Amgen could not obtain discovery related to activities that might infringe a patent that it had not asserted in its biosimilar patent litigation against Hospira....more

Federal Circuit Rules in Favor of Public Interest Group Standing at PTAB

by Jones Day on

In Personal Audio, LLC. v. Electronic Frontier Foundation, No. 2016-1123 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit reviewed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No....more

Standing to Appeal PTAB Decision to Federal Circuit is Measured for the Appellant, Not the Appellee

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III standing in Personal Audio,...more

Wait Your Turn: No Exception to Final Judgment Rule for Appeal of Denial of Motions to Compel

In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., [2016-2179] (August 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed Amgen’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion to compel for lack of jurisdiction, and rejected Amgen’s petition for...more

PTAB Designates Portion Of Assignor Estoppel Opinion As Precedential

by Jones Day on

In October 2016, we posted about a Federal Circuit decision addressing whether assignor estoppel bars a party from filing an inter partes review petition. In Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., the...more

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

AIA Does Not Override 28 USC § 1447(d) Reviewability Bar

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that provisions in the America Invents Act (AIA) related to federal courts’ jurisdiction over patent claims do not override 28 USC § 1447(d)’s limit on appellate review of...more

Rx IP Update - May 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Federal Court of Appeal finds that Apotex did not fail to mitigate its damages in relation to Apo-Trazodone drug submission - On April 6, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court’s finding that...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by Jones Day on

The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal. In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Considering Whether 1-Year IPR Time Bar Is Appealable

by Jones Day on

As we reported earlier, the Federal Circuit decided in January 2017 to rehear en banc whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar can be reviewed on appeal. Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. The...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - March 2017

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: updated predictions on patent policy under the Trump administration; recent happenings...more

Rx IP Update - February 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a...more

To concede or not concede (infringement): that is the question! An instance of a third party licence being requested during...

by FPA Patent Attorneys on

Under Australian law, if a patent application ceases and the patent is subsequently reinstated by the owner by use of our extension of time provisions, a third party may obtain a licence to the patent on the basis of steps...more

2016 PTAB Year in Review

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present our 2016 PTAB Year in Review. We begin with a look at 2016 activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which again ranked as the busiest jurisdiction in the...more

Federal Circuit Finds IPR Petitioner Lacks Standing To Appeal

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more

Federal Circuit Requires Standing To Appeal An IPR Decision

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In the case of Phygenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the petitioner (Phygenix) that had unsuccessfully challenged certain claims of ImmunoGen’s U.S. Patent No....more

An IPR Does Not Necessarily Have Standing to Appeal if it Loses

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., [2016-1544] (January 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix, the losing petitioner in an IPR, lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more

Federal Circuit to Reconsider Achates Decision en banc

The Federal Circuit is set to reconsider one of its more controversial decisions en banc, when it decides whether the Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc. decision was correctly decided. Specifically, in Wi-Fi...more

Reduced Scope of Post-IPR Estoppel Imperils Litigation Stays

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 3-13-cv-00571 (NJD November 4, 2016, Mem. Op. Dkt. 238) (Bongiovanni, MJ), the Court analyzed and applied recent Federal Circuit decisions limiting the scope of post-IPR estoppel...more

IPR Estoppel Narrowed Even Further in D. Delaware Ruling

Despite the astounding success for patent challengers to date in IPR proceedings, are you one who has been worried about the effects of the IPR estoppel in future litigation? Has this concern dissuaded you from considering...more

Three Point Shot - November 2016

by Proskauer Rose LLP on

Who's First in Ownership of the "Sweet Spot" Remains Unclear - Baseball is often called a "game of inches," whether one is describing the strike zone, a close play at the plate, or a liner past third base that just kicks...more

Medtronic v. Robert Bosch – Has the Federal Circuit closed the door on reviewing IPR institution decisions?

by Knobbe Martens on

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more

58 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.