News & Analysis as of

Patent Invalidity Patent Litigation United States Patent and Trademark Office

Foley Hoag LLP

Reshaped IPR Landscape: Narrower Estoppel and Fewer New Cases

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: An Informative PTAB Decision, Squires Speaks

Holland & Knight LLP on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Federal Circuit Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Director Vacates Decision to Institute: Investment in Parallel Proceeding Outweighed Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation

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

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

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

Morgan Lewis

A New Era for the PTAB: Discretion Returns, Layoffs Loom, and Early Challenges Encouraged

Morgan Lewis on

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

Baker Botts L.L.P.

First Quarter 2025 Federal Circuit Law Snapshot

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 201: The Risks and Rewards of Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Fintiv Guidelines for Post-Grant Proceedings Involving Parallel District Court Litigation

On March 24, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) released new guidance that clarifies application of the Fintiv factors when reviewing validity challenges simultaneously asserted at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more

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

Does Your Office Post-Grant Strategy Account for the Rise of Serial Challenges Flowing From the PTAB to the CRU?

After eight weeks of shifts in governmental policies, the patent bar is feeling repercussions from all directions. One critical area in flux is the post-grant challenge arena. With a reduced PTAB head count and a steady...more

Kilpatrick

PTAB: Initial Fallout from the New Director Guidance on Discretionary Denial of Institution

Kilpatrick on

Last week, my partner Justin Krieger published an alert regarding Acting Director Stewart's new guidance on discretionary denial. Shortly thereafter, Acting Director Stewart issued a decision vacating institution of several...more

Holland & Knight LLP

New Guidance Regarding Fintiv Discretionary Denial at the PTAB

Holland & Knight LLP on

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

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Vacates Claim Construction But Upholds PTAB’s Determination of Obviousness and Motivation to...

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc. In HD Silicon Solutions LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed an appeal from the USPTO Patent...more

Saul Ewing LLP

What Intellectual Property Owners Need to Know Today About Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Saul Ewing LLP on

What You Need to Know: • Instead of filing multiple applications claiming different aspects of an invention but not sharing a single priority chain, patentees should strive to file highly comprehensive applications that...more

Jones Day

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Jones Day on

On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

Miller Canfield

A New Alice Plot Twist - Can a Composition of Matter Be an Abstract Idea?

Miller Canfield on

The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Preserving Patent Rights: Impact of Public Use on Patenting

Amundsen Davis LLC on

For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report March 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

Ropes & Gray LLP

USPTO Rescinds Interim Guidance on Discretionary Denials

Ropes & Gray LLP on

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rescinded its June 21, 2022 Memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – February 2025

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Access Denied: Patent for Controlling Entry Found Ineligible Under Section 101

Holland & Knight LLP on

Earlier this month in Luxer Corp. v. Package Concierge, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that U.S. Patent No. 11,625,675 was ineligible under Section 101. In assessing the defendant's motion to...more

144 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"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