News & Analysis as of

Patent Invalidity Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Applications

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art?

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In a precedential opinion entered on January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating claims of a patent on...more

Irwin IP LLP

Published Patent Applications as Prior Art:  Filing, Not Publication, is Everything 

Irwin IP LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently addressed a deceptively straightforward question: does a published U.S. patent application qualify as prior art as of the application’s filing date in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings? ...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

Jones Day

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art in an IPR?

Jones Day on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit’s Decision Confirms That Published Patent Applications Are Prior Art In IPRs As Of Their Filing Date

WilmerHale on

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

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Published Application Art at the PTAB: Lynk Labs v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.

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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

A POSA’s Motivation Is Not Required To Be the Same as the Inventor’s in Evaluating Obviousness

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2023

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Searching for Claim Support in a Patent Specification? You Better Blaze a Trail

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

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

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

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

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

[Webinar] 2022 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis and Trends - February 28th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Speakers will offer updates, case summaries, and analysis of the significant 2022 PTAB guidance, actions, and rulings. Topics include: the Director’s 2022 Fintiv guidance, PTAB discretionary denial, the use of applicant...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[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

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

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

[Webinar] Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions - February 17th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to a webinar, "Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions," on Thursday, February 17, 2022. In conjunction with the release of the firm's...more

Morgan Lewis

Patent Interferences

Morgan Lewis on

A patent interference is an inter partes proceeding to determine which party was the first to invent commonly claimed subject matter. An interference is also a viable procedure for challenging the validity of an issued patent...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel to be Reviewed by U.S. Supreme Court

On January 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case calling for it to abolish or limit the doctrine of assignor estoppel. See Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al., No. 20-440, 2021 WL 77248 (U.S. Jan....more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2019

Knobbe Martens on

The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances  In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Quest USA Corp. v. PopSockets LLC (PTAB 2019)

Functional Language in Device Claim Ignored for Patentability Purposes - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently issued a decision indicating that certain claims of a patent directed to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2018 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2078, -2134 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2018) The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling following a bench trial,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more

Burr & Forman

Federal Circuit Case Highlights the Importance of a Well Designed Provisional Patent Application Strategy

Burr & Forman on

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation, et al., No. 2016-1243 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2017). This case highlights the importance of a...more

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Looks to Provisional Patent Application in Determining Claim Scope

BakerHostetler on

Differences between a provisional patent application and a nonprovisional application claiming priority to the provisional application may inform claim construction, following the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in MPHJ...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In re Nuvasive (Fed. Cir. 2016)

In a precedential decision the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating claims from Nuvasive's U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 in an inter partes review instituted on a petition by...more

28 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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