Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This periodic digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (“422 patent”) – which relates to treatment of prostate cancer in humans by co-administration of abiraterone acetate (marketed by Janssen...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
On July 22, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued an opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC & Netflix, Inc., No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir. 2020) authorizing the U.S. Patent Trial &...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) claim construction (and inter partes review (IPR) decision invalidating claims for obviousness) in it recent Genentech, Inc. v. Iancu decision, and also...more
In Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, the patent owner moved to amend the claims contingent on an unpatentability finding by the Board. The contingent amendment cancelled the original claims and replaced them with a new claim set. The...more
As PTAB practitioners know, statistics on successful motions to amend are quite dismal. But in a recent case, the PTAB shed light on what may be a successful strategy for patent owners to amend their claims in an Inter Partes...more
In reversing a district court decision as to whether a validity issue remained justiciable after the challenged claims were disclaimed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the patent owner’s...more
The Board recently exercised its discretion to terminate trial and obviate the Patent Owner’s pending Motion to Amend, after the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that all of the challenged claims were...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion concerning the patentability of proposed substitute...more
Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more
The Board authorized petitioner Kingston to file a Response to the patent owner’s Reply to petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc holding that the burden to establish...more
The PTAB granted-in-part motions to amend in three related proceedings: Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, IPR2015-01953, Paper 107 (P.T.A.B. sealed on March 23, 2017, made public on April 19, 2017);...more
The District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Wolf) recently decided two pending motions in Janssen v. Celltrion: - ..Plaintiffs’ motion to stay litigation on the ‘471 patent (covering infliximab) pending...more
PTAB Ignores District Court Claim Construction, Finds Patent Invalid - On February 19, 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in the Covered Business Method (CBM) patent...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
PTAB Update on Inter Partes Review - On August 19, 2015, the Director of the USPTO released a blog post reporting on the state of post-grant review proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 and...more
Earlier this week, we noted that parties wishing to challenge IPR Final Written Decisions from the PTAB on appeal to the Federal Circuit would face an uphill challenge. However, even if that challenge is extremely difficult,...more
In This Issue: - En Banc Federal Circuit Abandons “Strong” Presumption That a Limitation Is Not Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, Paragraph 6 - Supreme Court Rejects Belief of Invalidity Defense for Inducement in...more
The Federal Circuit decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., addressed several important issues relating to post-grant patent trials conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including the PTAB’s...more