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
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
What You Need to Know: • Instead of filing multiple applications claiming different aspects of an invention but not sharing a single priority chain, patentees should strive to file highly comprehensive applications that...more
On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
On June 6, 2024, Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (“Waydoo”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“the ’044 Patent”) (“IPR998”), assigned to MHL Custom, Inc. (“MHL”)....more
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 14, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Lourie and Stark....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
On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...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
On January 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir.), affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling that “a published patent...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 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
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
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its...more
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORP. Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: The patentee has the burden of proving that...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more