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
In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed...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
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
The importance of claim construction, and how construing the same term facing a challenge based on different prior art in separate inter partes review proceedings can result in contrary findings on invalidity, was illustrated...more
Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...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
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) In this week’s case of the week, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed existing precedent that in inter partes review proceedings before...more
Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1373, -1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023) In appeals from two inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on related patents, the Federal Circuit...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
Last month the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) decision finding that the University of Minnesota’s patent claim directed to the anti-cancer drug sofosbuvir was not adequately supported by the written...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
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
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...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
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Indefinite claims do not preclude patentability analysis at the PTAB....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
During a Markman hearing, a judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a plaintiff’s request that the defendant be judicially estopped from arguing claim constructions that were different from positions the...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
Recent Precedential Decisions Applying Fintiv - When a company is sued for patent infringement, often one early strategic consideration is whether to counterattack the patent’s validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
In the last two years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued two precedential decisions (in NHK and Fintiv) that set forth the board’s test for determining whether to deny an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC addressing the different claim construction standards used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (broadest reasonable...more