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
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
In Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al., Nos. 22-1493, 22-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2023), Sierra Wireless challenged claims 1-10 of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”) in an inter partes review....more
In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. FINJAN LLC V. SONICWALL, INC [OPINION] (22-1048, 10/13/2023) (Reyna, Bryson, and Cunningham) - Cunningham, J. The Court vacated the district court’s judgment of...more
The Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for relying on an argument raised by the petitioner for the first time on remand. In so doing, the court held that the...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
The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated patent owner Qualcomm’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not giving it notice and a chance to...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court invalidity determination finding that judicial estoppel prevented a patent owner from relisting an inventor previously removed for strategic litigation...more
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, patent applicants (and with the advent of inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, patentees) have found it difficult to overcome...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
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
Addressing the appeal of a judgment that four US patents were infringed and not invalid, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: • Found waiver regarding a claim construction issue • Found direct infringement...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
Finding that the use of the phrase “present invention” in the specification limited the scope of a patent’s claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment and remanded the case,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018) In appeals from three inter partes reviews, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision...more
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Encompasses All Embodiments in the Absence of Support Specifically Excluding an Embodiment - In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1290, the Federal Circuit...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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - In re Power Integrations, Inc., Appeal No. 17-1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In In re: Power Integrations, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) rejection of a...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more