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
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
AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...more
AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. 2023-1997 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 19, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Bryson. DMF owns a patent directed to a compact recessed lighting system that can be installed in a standard...more
On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more
Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron...more
In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more
The door may now be open for additional challenges to patents covering mRNA vaccine technologies, paving the way for increased competition in the mRNA vaccine space. On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, the United States Patent...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. In Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a...more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the validity of a pharmaceutical patent concerning the patent’s written description. Following an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. [OPINION] (2023-1397, 2/6/2025) (Lourie, Stoll, Cunningham) - Lourie, J. The Board affirmed the Final Written...more
Note: This post addresses two Federal Circuit decisions issued on January 29, 2025. Both appeals involved Plaintiff-Appellee Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the first appeal involving Defendant-Appellant Formycon AG...more
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
Apple Inc., et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Nos. 2023-1501, -1554 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 27, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Hughes....more
Minocin® (minocycline) - Case Name: Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 21-2636, 2024 WL 4799896 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024) (Kness, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Minocin® (minocycline);...more
The landscape of design protection has seen significant developments on both sides of the Atlantic, with the U.S. undergoing a pivotal shift in design patent law following the Federal Circuit’s decision in LKQ Corporation v....more
On January 10, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., reversing a lower court decision that claims of a Novartis patent...more
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
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB v. JSR CORP. [OPINION] (2023-2074, 12/4/2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR determination that...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: USPTO Director Vidal to Step Down - On November 12, Under Secretary of...more
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...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
On March 26, 2024, the Federal Court dismissed Medexus and Medac’s action for patent infringement of Canadian Patent No 2,659,662 (the 662 Patent), finding the asserted claims invalid for obviousness: Medexus Pharmaceuticals...more