Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Aerospace technology companies often decide between patenting an innovation or keeping it as a trade secret. Typically, the analysis involves comparing the potential strength of patent protection that is likely to result. If...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys. In Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., the Federal Circuit addressed the use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art...more
Are you planning on challenging a competitor’s patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)? The policies of the new director of the USPTO may cause you to rethink your strategy. The USPTO has recently proposed a new...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in IGT v. Zygna Inc. This case affirms an obviousness finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding filed after...more
In Brita LP v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 24-1098 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) decision that certain claims of...more
Six years ago, in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, the Federal Circuit held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges were principal officers. That ruling garnered significant attention from patent practitioners leading up...more
On October 17, 2025, the USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes new rules that would significantly limit the circumstances in which the PTAB can institute or maintain an IPR where the patent has...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the...more
Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2025-1210, -1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has given an important ruling confirming its “long-arm jurisdiction”, with important consequences for the UK. The Mannheim Local Division (LD) confirmed in Fujifilm v. Kodak that it could hear...more
The District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a defendant’s motion to bifurcate, ordering that issues related to PGR estoppel should be decided in a bench trial, while the remaining issues in the...more
The Northern District of Iowa recently held that a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity was barred after the PTAB issued final written decisions, regardless of when the motion was filed. The defendant...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published proposed regulations that would fundamentally transform the inter partes review (IPR) landscape, potentially eliminating IPR as a viable option for many...more
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., et al., No. 2023-2027 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Oct. 22, 2025). Opinion by Cunningham, joined by Moore and Hughes....more
In recent years, the landscape of patent litigation has evolved significantly. Based on data obtained from Lex Machina®, the U.S. district courts have seen a general decline in overall patent case filings over the past decade...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US International Trade Commission’s (Commission) decision that a water filtration patent was invalid for lack of written description and enablement because the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of noninfringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness, concluding that the court correctly construed the claims and properly determined...more
Following a dismissal on the pleadings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after concluding that the asserted patent was...more
In a March 2025 article, we provided strategy considerations for both parties handling ex parte reexaminations following denied inter partes reviews (IPRs) in view of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)...more
As private companies grow and become more successful, they may become targets of patent licensing or infringement demands. These demands may arise from patent assertion entities (PAEs) that are principally seeking monetary...more
In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. v. Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2025-00893. While some factors...more
In a recent patent infringement case, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) awarded attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act because the case was “exceptional,” but denied fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority...more
Recent advances in commercial geospatial technology—including access to time-stamped satellite imagery, multispectral data and radar imaging—have created new evidentiary tools for IP litigators. Properly authenticated, these...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. In Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the presumption of...more
Every October, we’re reminded that the scariest things are often the ones you don’t see coming. For patent owners, that’s true year-round. Beneath the surface of even the most impressive-looking portfolios can lurk hidden...more