News & Analysis as of

Obviousness

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 4, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 30, 2025). Opinion by Scarsi, joined by Taranto and Stoll. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims a method for reducing eye redness...more

Jones Day

Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

Jones Day on

On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned...more

MoFo Life Sciences

Is Your Claim Open or Closed? Claim Construction Takes on a New Meaning in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

MoFo Life Sciences on

On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Prosecution history primacy: “Consisting essentially of” means what applicant said it meant

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report July 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

The PTAB has returned to a more flexible and discretionary approach to denying post-grant proceedings, reintroducing the Fintiv factors and adding new considerations such as settled expectations and USPTO workload. These...more

Knobbe Martens

An Eye Toward Prosecution History

Knobbe Martens on

EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Eye Therapies LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: Strategic Insights for Petitioners and Patent Owners in a Shifting Landscape

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

A set of recently issued memoranda by United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) officials has re-energized the debate around discretionary denials in post-grant trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)....more

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Patent Obviousness in the AI Era

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

The proliferation of artificial intelligence (“AI”) presents complex challenges for intellectual property, especially within patent law. In particular, the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be susceptible to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed construction of the transitional claim phrase...more

Venable LLP

Pembrolizumab Patent IPR Final Written Decision Issued and Director Review Requested

Venable LLP on

On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Eyes Open to the Past: Federal Circuit Holds Prosecution History Is Claim Construction Evidence

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies that Enablement of Prior Art is a Separate (and Distinct) Inquiry from Enablement of Claims in a Patent

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending June 27, 2025

Alston & Bird on

CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2025

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Knobbe Martens

Finding Common Ground? — Federal Circuit Clarifies IPR Estoppel

Knobbe Martens on

INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...more

Venable LLP

Sarepta Files Two IPRs Against Genzyme’s Patents Gene Therapy Elevidys® Allegedly Infringes

Venable LLP on

On June 26, 2025, Sarepta Therapeutics filed IPR2025-01194, challenging as obvious claims 3-6 of Genzyme’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,542 (“the ’542 patent), and IPR2025-01195 challenging claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No....more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Nick Gallo, and Bryan Smith explore the evolving landscape of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and...more

Knobbe Martens

Keeping PACE With CRISPR

Knobbe Martens on

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more

Jones Day

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

Jones Day on

A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more

McDermott Will & Emery

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: RPI Arguments Must First Be Raised at the PTAB

Jones Day on

Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending June 20, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1674, -1701 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 16, 2025). Per curiam opinion, before Louri, Reyna, and Hughes. Ancora owns a patent directed to restricting unauthorized use of...more

1,753 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 71

"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