News & Analysis as of

Patent Invalidity Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Appeals

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: PTAB Decision of Invalidity Cannot Estop District Court Litigation on Different Claims from the Same Patent, Even...

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.

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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision On Unpatentability, With The PTO Stepping In After Appellee Withdrew

A&O Shearman on

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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Fintiv Guidelines for Post-Grant Proceedings Involving Parallel District Court Litigation

On March 24, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) released new guidance that clarifies application of the Fintiv factors when reviewing validity challenges simultaneously asserted at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more

Sunstein LLP

Collateral (Patent) Damage Undone by Federal Circuit?

Sunstein LLP on

In Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon, The Federal Circuit issued a decision that should come as a comfort to patent owners, addressing the interplay between decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending March 21, 2025

Alston & Bird on

AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. 2023-1997 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 19, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Bryson. DMF owns a patent directed to a compact recessed lighting system that can be installed in a standard...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Construing Unambiguous Claim Language and Qualifying Challenged Expert as POSITA

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending March 7, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Apple Inc., et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Nos. 2023-1475, -1533 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 4, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Moore and Stoll....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that  all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more

Jones Day

PTAB Retains Jurisdiction Of Expired Patents

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Discretionary Denials May be on the Rise Following PTAB’s Decision to Withdraw Fintiv Memo

On Feb. 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rescinded a memorandum issued by former Director Kathy Vidal (the “Fintiv Memo”), which, since June 21, 2022, provided guidance on when the Patent Trial and...more

Ropes & Gray LLP

USPTO Rescinds Interim Guidance on Discretionary Denials

Ropes & Gray LLP on

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rescinded its June 21, 2022 Memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court...more

Hudnell Law Group

Differing Burdens of Proof Limits Estoppel Effect of PTAB Final Written Decision

Hudnell Law Group on

On February 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., reversing and remanding a district court ruling that had dismissed Kroy’s patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Unclear Analysis at the PTAB Leads to Confusion at the Federal Circuit

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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB Has Jurisdiction To Review Expired Patents

A&O Shearman on

On, January 27, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on certain claims of Gesture Technology...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Lynk to the Past: Published Applications Are Prior Art as of Filing Date

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2024 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

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

Jones Day

Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

Jones Day on

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

Warner Norcross + Judd

Federal Circuit Affirms the Use of ‘Secret’ Prior Art

Warner Norcross + Judd on

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

174 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide