New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In a recent decision, Flatwork Technologies LLC v Brierley (2020 FC 997), the Federal Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, Flatwork Technologies, LLC (Flatwork), in respect of its patent impeachment...more
A district court has ruled that the statutory estoppel arising from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding does not apply to anticipation and obviousness defenses that rely significantly on a physical device. The court also...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-2215, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020) - In this appeal from the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit...more
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more
One area of estoppel arising from an unsuccessful AIA petition that remains poorly understood relates to prior art that is described both in a printed publication or patent and also was in use by others, such as to create...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
In an order issued on April 4, 2018, Judge Lynn granted plaintiff ZitoVault’s motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), holding that defendant IBM is estopped from asserting invalidity defenses based on prior art...more
Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more
With the U.S. biosimilar pathway created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) now fully up and running, there are now seven ongoing biosimilar litigations in the U.S. Here are brief updates on recent...more
As we previously reported, the district court in Janssen v. Celltrion (in which U.S. Patent Nos. 6,284,471 and 7,598,083 are at issue) began hearing oral argument on August 16 on Celltrion’s motion for summary judgment that...more