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 June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more
When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...more
In Ingenico v. IOENGINE, No. 2023-1367 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025), the Federal Circuit resolved a long-standing split among District Courts in favor of petitioners regarding inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more
On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. (“ERGO Baby”). ...more
Key Takeaways - - A recent Federal Circuit decision in a case involving an inter partes review (IPR) significantly narrowed a patentee’s ability to rely on estoppel to block a defendant from raising invalidity grounds. -...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated a recent decision as informative. In the decision, Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), ended the petitioner's challenges, noting that...more
Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more
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 IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a...more
In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...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
On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768 Patent...more
In a February 10, 2025 order, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine to patent claims asserted in a district court infringement action where other claims in the same...more
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
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more
Contour IP Holdings, LLC, v. GoPro, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04738-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2025) - The estoppel provision of the American Invents Act (AIA) (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) prevents a petitioner in an inter parties...more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
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