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
Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc. In HD Silicon Solutions LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed an appeal from the USPTO Patent...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
The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...more
For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...more
This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...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
Earlier this month in Luxer Corp. v. Package Concierge, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that U.S. Patent No. 11,625,675 was ineligible under Section 101. In assessing the defendant's motion to...more
On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a new proposed rule that would require when a patent applicant submits a terminal disclaimer to obviate non statutory double patenting that...more
Over the course of 2024, the patent law landscape has continued to evolve as significant court rulings and emerging technologies shaped its direction. During 2024, activities at the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, various...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has once again been urged to revisit 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligibility. Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (AED) filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the Federal...more
Inter partes activity involving design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was relatively low in 2024. The PTAB rendered just two inter partes decisions involving design patents: Next Step Group, Inc. v....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 landscape of design protection has seen significant developments on both sides of the Atlantic, with the U.S. undergoing a pivotal shift in design patent law following the Federal Circuit’s decision in LKQ Corporation v....more
As we predicted in our 2023 report, 2024 was a banner year for design rights in the U.S. and elsewhere. In last year’s report, we noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed to consider en banc...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
Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...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: USPTO Director Vidal to Step Down - On November 12, Under Secretary of...more
Canatex Completion Sol. Inc. vs. Wellmatics LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-03306, Dkt. No. 100 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2023) - Found a mistake in your patent? You might want to get it fixed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark...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 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