News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications Statutory Interpretation

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re Forest

In re Forest, Appeal No. 2023-1178 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2025) In an appeal from a Patent Office decision denying a patent that would have been expired upon issuance, the Federal Circuit dismissed. Applicant Forest had filed...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

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Riggs Decision: 35 USC 102(e) Prior Art Requires Written Description Support...

Goodwin on

On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Lynk to the Past: Published Applications Are Prior Art as of Filing Date

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding challenged claims invalid based on a published patent application that, in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, was...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Reviewing 2024's Crucial Patent Law Developments

As 2024 draws to a close, several crucial developments — some aimed at modernizing long-standing legal practices, others addressing emerging challenges — have reached patent law. Originally published in Law360 - December...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Supreme Court Sidesteps America's Patent Eligibility Crisis

In an order that is clearly less impactful and damaging than a number of opinions that the Supreme Court has disgorged in the last two weeks, the justices have denied certiorari in American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Update on Artificial Intelligence: USPTO Urges Federal Circuit to Affirm Decision That AI Cannot Qualify as an “Inventor”

In three previous blog posts, we have discussed recent inventorship issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and its implications for life sciences innovations – focusing specifically on scientist Stephen Thaler’s...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Sides with PTO on Applicant Delay in Patent Term Adjustment

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

After-Final Response Does Not Stop PTA Clock

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that charged a deduction for “applicant delay” for time after the applicant filed a first...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2019 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Inspired Development Grp, LLC v. Inspired Products Grp., LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1616 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019) - Our first patent case of the week is not, according to the Federal Circuit, a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

“Equal to” Means “Not Exceed” when Determining Patent Term Adjustment

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) erred in calculating a patent term adjustment (PTA) for a patent covering an oral osmotic form of an antihypertensive drug,...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Term Adjustment: The Real Meaning of Applicant Delay

On January 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit decided Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Iancu and shed light on Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). PTA was established by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and codified at 35...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: “All the Expenses” Does Not Mean “Attorneys’ Fees”

Jones Day on

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018). The Court held, by a 7-4 vote (Judge Chen, the former PTO Solicitor, was recused), that if the...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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