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
The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more
Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more
On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was unpatentable due to obviousness-type double patenting. The court found...more
Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...more
On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-1636, 2024 WL 5114204 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) concerns an obviousness determination based on a motivation to combine....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in Crown Packaging Technology Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. is noteworthy because it discusses two key requirements of the on-sale bar prong of pre-AIA section...more
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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent. Shenzhen Root Tech. Co.,...more
In a recent precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent application constitutes prior art as of its filing date, not its publication date. In Lynk Labs. Inc. v....more
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
The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., issued on January 2, 2025, overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) factual and legal holdings in the final...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding a motivation to combine prior...more
In its first precedential opinion of 2025, Honeywell v. 3G Licensing, No. 2023-1354, the Federal Circuit held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) needs not to have the same motivation as the inventor in an...more
Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Nos. 2023-1354, -1384, -1407 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 2, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen. Dissenting opinion by Stoll....more
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Design Patent Obviousness Test Thrown Out - The U.S. Court of Appeals...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of “analogous prior art,” a patent law doctrine fundamental to the legal determination of whether a patent is invalid as obvious over the prior art....more