IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
The PTAB denied institution of a second inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Aylo Freesites (“Petitioner”) after having previously instituted inter partes review of Petitioner’s first petition related to the same...more
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant decision making it more...more
A panel of the Federal Circuit has again held that Commissioner Drew Hirshfeld had the requisite authority to act on requests for Director review of PTAB decisions during which the office of Director was vacant. Fall Line...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
Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, Appeal No. 2019-1483 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit provided what appears to be its first precedential opinion construing Section 317 of the...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
For the Patent and Trail Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the PTAB allows a petition for inter parties review (“IPR”) to request cancellation of claims in a U.S. patent. For an inter parties review of a patent, the PTAB institutes...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-2416, et al. (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020) (unsealed May 13, 2020) - In this recently unsealed precedential opinion, the Federal...more
The Patent Act allows anyone to try to initiate an inter partes review (IPR), which is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging one or more claims of a patent. Any such challenge may be based...more
On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO...more
PETER V. NANTKWEST, INC. Before Sotomayor, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Appeal from the Federal Circuit on rehearing en banc. Summary: A patent applicant appealing an adverse decision...more
In a surprising precedential ruling, with the potential to vacate past decisions by administrative patent judges (“APJs”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit released its ruling on the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board judge appointments (Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. October 31, 2019))....more
Since the present reissue statute was enacted as part of the 1952 Patent Act, the Patent Office has granted almost eight million utility patents and less than twenty-five thousand reissue patents. Nevertheless, reissue...more
On the same day that the Supreme Court decided what the term "full costs" means under the Copyright Act, it granted certiorari to consider what "all the expenses of [a district court review] proceeding" means under the Patent...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 11th annual list of top patent stories. For 2017, we identified nineteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended during inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are or are not...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
With yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee vote, there are now competing, and in some respects significantly different, patent reform proposals under serious consideration in the House and the Senate. Among the most important...more
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-4 to send an amended version of S. 1137, the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act, to the full Senate for debate. The PATENT Act is this year’s...more