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
In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Addresses Waiver of Argument Not Raised in Request for...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had...more
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more
Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidity of all claims of two asserted patents as...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concerning the application of 37 CFR § 42.73(d)(3)(i)’s estoppel provisions in invalidating amended patent claims....more
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, Nos. 2022-2220, -2250 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2024). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Stark. UNMRI owns a patent that relates to methods for constructing frame...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Design Patent Obviousness Test Thrown Out - The U.S. Court of Appeals...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
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...more
Before Lourie, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: An infringement judgment is only sufficiently “final” to be immune from a later finding of unpatentability if...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. IOENGINE, LLC V. VIDAL (21-1227 Lourie, Chen, Stoll) - Chen, J. The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This periodic digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...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 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written...more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently addressed both the timing requirements and procedures for filing a Sotera stipulation before the Board in, BMW of North America LLC v. Northstar Systems LLC, IPR2023-01017...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
On January 9, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2022-01225 and IPR2022-01226, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents directed to dosing of aflibercept — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,681 and 10,888,601. The PTAB...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...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