New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...more
There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...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
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
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
Addressing claim construction issues in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness finding as to some claims...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two district court decisions, finding that a patent owner who only partially prevailed in one of two appeals was not entitled to any additional patent term adjustments...more
On April 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination in IPR2016-01542 that claims of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 are obvious. The ’138 patent claims are directed to...more
General Electric Co. (GE) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 3 and 16 of Raytheon Technologies Corp.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,695,751 related to gas turbine engines. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)...more
Campbell Soup Co. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Gamon Plus, Inc.’s design patents D612,646 and D621,645. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and determined that Campbell Soup did not...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 Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 20-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) (precedential), the Federal Circuit issued a rare reversal of a PTAB final determination of obviousness because the principal reference used...more
[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all...more
Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., Appeal No. 2020-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) - In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit issued an important ruling about the issue of enablement...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
In Mapei Corp. and Southeastern Printing Co. v. J.M. Field Marketing Inc., Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed trade secret issues in a dispute among a construction product company (Mapei), its former...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more
The procedural niceties of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's implementation of the post-grant review features of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act continue to be explicated in the Federal Circuit (and of course, the...more
In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more
Summary judgment, while clearly advantageous, requires that there be no disputed question of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a district court grants judgment...more
Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding the decision was infected by an erroneous claim construction that failed to consider the purpose of...more
The Federal Circuit recently held certain method of treatment claims patent eligible under step one of Alice, reversing a district court’s judgment on the pleadings. In that same case, the Federal Circuit upheld the district...more