New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Addressing forfeiture of issues on appeal and sufficiency of the asserted prior art, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, explaining that a party does not...more
On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more
On remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board considered the petitioner’s reply arguments and evidence regarding the...more
In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
On December 15, 2023, a Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal.1 At issue in this appeal was whether the Board...more
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) This week’s Case of the Week mostly resolves an appeal filed five years ago, following decisions from the...more
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. PARKERVISION, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION] (2022-1548, 12/15/2023) (Prost, Wallach, and Chen)* - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the patent...more
Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more
Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...more
On March 31, 2023, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (“Zhuhai”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,329,352 (“the ’352 Patent”), assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd....more
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
This case addresses the validity of two patents asserted against wireless communications technologies. In particular, this case discusses claim construction and post-issuance claim amendments that broaden the scope of...more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that nothing requires a petitioner to identify a prior art reference as a “primary reference” in...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) In this week’s case of the week, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed existing precedent that in inter partes review proceedings before...more
AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - MEDYTOX, INC. v. GALDERMA S.A. [OPINION] (2022-1165, 6/27/2023) (Dyk, Reyna, and Stark) - Reyna, J. The Court affirmed a decision by the PTAB in a post-grant review denying an...more
Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1373, -1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023) In appeals from two inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on related patents, the Federal Circuit...more