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
On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more
In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more
The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on...more
In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more
In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more
The USPTO has launched a sweeping recalibration of its post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, signaling a decisive pivot back toward discretionary denials of patent challenges. With the rescission of prior procedural guidance, a...more
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
Two recent memoranda from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) have sought to clarify the factors by which boards will evaluate discretionary denial under Fintiv. This guidance follows the U.S. Patent and...more
Being sued for patent infringement in the U.S. can be confusing, especially for foreign companies with limited litigation experience. Even more confusing are the multiple options and venues available for responding to patent...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim...more
Recently, Cloudflare Inc. succeeded in convincing the PTAB to institute in IPR2021-00969 against a Sable Network, Inc.’s patent directed toward data flow. While the institution itself is not out of the ordinary—the...more
On July 22, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued an opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC & Netflix, Inc., No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir. 2020) authorizing the U.S. Patent Trial &...more
As PTAB practitioners know, statistics on successful motions to amend are quite dismal. But in a recent case, the PTAB shed light on what may be a successful strategy for patent owners to amend their claims in an Inter Partes...more
There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more
Using an innovative strategy, pharmaceutical company Allergan recently transferred the patents associated with the eye drug, Restasis, to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, in exchange for an exclusive license back. The tribe...more
In the wake of the high-profile dispute in Apple v. Samsung, design patent procurement and enforcement activity has increased significantly. But practitioners may not appreciate that design patent validity can be attacked...more