News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications Obviousness Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Discretionary Denials in Action: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Priority Denied, Patent Derailed: When One Filing Cancels Out the Other

On April 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision In re: Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd that underscores a critical and often overlooked risk in design patent prosecution: relying on a utility patent application for...more

ArentFox Schiff

Designers Beware: Prior Utility Patent Lacking Written Support Can Anticipate Later-Filed Design Patents

ArentFox Schiff on

In its recent In re Floyd opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject a design applicant’s priority claim to an earlier utility filing for...more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

One Year of LKQ v. GM: How Much Has Really Changed?

One year ago today, the en banc Federal Circuit decided LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, where it overturned the decades-old Rosen-Durling test for obviousness of a design patent for being “improperly...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Method of Treatment Claim’s Limiting Preamble Must Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more

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

Federal Circuit Reaffirms “Carried Forward” Requirement for Provisional Priority in Reexams and Reissues

Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more

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

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 4, 2025

Alston & Bird on

In re: Forest, No. 2023-1178 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 3, 2025). Opinion by Chen, joined by Taranto and Schall.  In 2016, an inventor filed a patent application that claimed priority to an application filed in 1995. The Patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Patent Without a Pulse: Provisional Rights Don’t Outlive the Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a patent applicant seeking provisional rights on a patent that would issue only after it had already expired, finding that the applicant lacked the...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Limits Reliance on Provisional Priority Date Under Section 102(e)(1)

On March 24, the Federal Circuit held in In re Riggs that for a published non-provisional patent application to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) based on an earlier provisional filing date, all citations to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Detour Ahead: New Approach to Assessing Prior Art Rejections Under § 102(e)

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a more demanding test for determining whether a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application is considered prior art under pre-America...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re: Riggs

In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more

Polsinelli

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Obviousness Judgment on ImmunoGen Patent Application

Polsinelli on

1. Background: ImmunoGen’s Patent Application & Dispute - In 2014, ImmunoGen, Inc. (Immunogen) filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/509,809 (the ’809 application)....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2023-1475, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a high-stakes appeal from an inter partes review concerning a patent titled “Camera Based...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

Alston & Bird

Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter | February 2025

Alston & Bird on

Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that the Federal Circuit always says never, patent publications...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Clarifies Timing Issues Associated with Pre-AIA Patent Applications in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung...

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. This case addresses the date on which a pre-AIA published patent application obtains its status as...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more

Hudnell Law Group

Published but not Public? Federal Circuit Confirms Published Patent Applications Count as Prior Art from Filing Date in IPRs.

Hudnell Law Group on

On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025), addressing whether a...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art?

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In a precedential opinion entered on January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating claims of a patent on...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2025 #3

Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that appellants Bearbox and Austin Storms—Bearbox’s...more

Jones Day

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art in an IPR?

Jones Day on

On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Published Patent Applications Are Prior Art as of the Filing Date, Not the Publication Date - Lynk Labs raises a simple question of statutory interpretation with surprisingly important ramifications:  in inter partes review,...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Published Application Art at the PTAB: Lynk Labs v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.

In Lynk Labs, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit reinforced that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date—even where those applications were not published...more

97 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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