News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Jones Day

Secondary Considerations Arguments Precluded By Prior Nexus Testimony

Jones Day on

On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A New Vision: Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Extend to Related Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

WDTX Magistrate Judge Grants Stay Pending IPR Despite Alleged Delay Tactics by Defendant in Pre-Suit Negotiations

The Western District of Texas granted a motion to stay a patent infringement lawsuit pending inter partes review not only because doing so would simplify the issues in the still-early litigation and reduce the burden on the...more

A&O Shearman

Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc.

A&O Shearman on

In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more

Jones Day

Petitioners Beware: Screenshots Showing Product May Not Qualify as Printed Publication

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Without Concrete Evidence of Potential Infringement Liability, Petitioner Lacked Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written...

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more

Jones Day

Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

Jones Day on

On December 1, 2023, Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. (“Intelligent”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) (“IPR256”), assigned to Downing Wellhead Equipment,...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending September 6, 2024

Alston & Bird on

Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 2023-1107 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Sept. 3, 2024). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Dyk and Stark. Broadband iTV sued Amazon for infringement of five patents directed to...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Expert Need Not Have Acquired the Requisite Skill Level Prior to the Time of the Invention

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2024 #2

Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Irwin IP LLP

Standing in Limbo: What Platinum Optics v. Viavi Tells Us About IPR Appeals 

Irwin IP LLP on

Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., 2024 WL 3836107 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - On August 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dismissed an appeal for lack of standing after a...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - September 2024

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Humira® (adalimumab) / Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto) / Cyltezo® (adalimumab-adbm) / Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz) /...

Venable LLP on

Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - September...

Venable LLP on

Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Goodwin

PTAB Institutes Sarepta’s IPR

Goodwin on

As we previously reported, REGENXBIO’s litigation against Sarepta, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,680,274 (the “’274 patent”) by Sarepta’s gene therapy product, was stayed pending resolution of Sarepta’s IPR...more

Jones Day

Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

Jones Day on

On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

What Makes a Case Exceptional?

What Makes a Case Exceptional? Panel: Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Albright,[1] with Judge Albright authoring the opinion. You should read this case if: you are seeking or opposing an award of attorneys’ fees under...more

Jones Day

PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

Jones Day on

In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more

Baker Donelson

Patent Cases to Watch for in the Second Half of 2024

Baker Donelson on

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

Jones Day

Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

Jones Day on

In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more

1,408 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 57

"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