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
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
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...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
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1410, -1554 (Fed. Cir. January 9, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed two inter partes review...more
Not surprisingly, the Federal Circuit visited upon Plaintiff/Appellant PureCircle two of the Four Horsemen of the Biotech Patent Apocalypse* in a decision affirming the District Court's invalidation of the claims asserted...more
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Appeal No. 2021-2350 (Fed. Cir. 2022) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings that IBM’s...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
Give us an hour of your time and we will deliver a fun and free CLE with a fast-paced overview on the state of patent law. In their fourth annual webinar, BakerHostetler Partners Michael E. Anderson and Jason F. Hoffman will...more
The Federal Circuit's inchoate attempts to fashion a consistent, rational application of the Supreme Court's recent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence, while understandably Herculean in view of the difficulties inherent...more
272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ordering plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC to pay over $700,000 in fees that accrued...more
Over the past year, Pebble Tide LLC has asserted its two patents against an array of companies – from banks and insurance companies to entertainment conglomerates – alleging that the defendants infringe patents related to...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a new standing order requiring patent-infringement defendants to disclose “eligibility contentions.” Standing Order Regarding...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
For nearly two decades, the Eastern District of Texas has been a hotbed of patent litigation. Even after the Supreme Court’s 2017 TC Heartland decision narrowed a plaintiff’s venue options, the Eastern District of Texas still...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
In Natural Alternatives Internat'l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court decision that held the asserted claims invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the pleadings stage. I previously wrote about...more
Priority Claims Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference - In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Appeal Nos. 2016-2707 and 2016-2708, the Federal Circuit held that when a patent for a...more
In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. ...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (No. 2017-1437, 5/31/18) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. (No. 2017-1452, 5/31/2018) (Per Curiam) - Moore, J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. Berkheimer and...more
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the field of Patent Law (Alice Corp. v. CLS Int’l) invalidated software patents related to mitigating settlement risk. Relying on the now-infamous Section...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more