News & Analysis as of

Patent Invalidity Precedential Opinion Patent Trial and Appeal Board

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Federal Circuit Orders Remanded Case Reassigned to New Judge, Finding That Trial Judge’s Statements...

WilmerHale on

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

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

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, August 2024: Federal Circuit Rules on Arguments Not Raised in Request for Rehearing, USPTO Director’s Potential...

Erise IP on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Printed Matter Doctrine Applies to Communicative Content, Not All Communications

WilmerHale on

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

Fish & Richardson

2023 Post-Grant Annual Report

Fish & Richardson on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Patent owner assumes temporary burden of production when attempting to antedate prior art

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - BLUE GENTIAN, LLC v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC. (21-2316, 6/9/23) (Prost, Chen, and Stark) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision finding that a nonparty...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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Assignor estoppel applies to claims that are not "materially broader" than the originally assigned...

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MCDONALD [OPINION] (2021-1697, 8/10/2022) (Newman, Stoll, and Cunningham) - Cunningham, J. The Court affirmed a PTAB decision rejecting reissue claims under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2022 #4

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...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

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - August 2021 #2

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - SEABED GEOSOLUTIONS (US) INC. v. MAGSEIS FF LLC [OPINION] (2020-1237, August 11, 2021) (MOORE, LINN and CHEN) - Moore, Chief Judge. Vacating final written decision of the Patent...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - June 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [OPINION] (2020-1475, 2020-1605, May 28, 2021) (Newman, Lourie, Dyk)  Lourie, J. Affirming the decision of the...more

Jones Day

PRECEDENTIAL: Trial Court Stay Weighs Strongly Against Fintiv Denial

Jones Day on

The USPTO designated Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00820 (PTAB October 21, 2020) (Paper 15) (“Snap”) as precedential as to § II.A regarding its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions

[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Agreement Not to Raise Duplicative Arguments in District Court Key to Avoiding Discretionary Denial of IPR Petition

In the last two years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued two precedential decisions (in NHK and Fintiv) that set forth the board’s test for determining whether to deny an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - February 2019: With The Right Language, Federal Circuit Finds Alternative Invalidity Theories Ok...

In a precedential decision Realtime (page 8-9) and a follow-on non-precedential decision Polygroup (page 15), two Federal Circuit panels (with Dyk on each) appear to hold that a single two-reference obviousness Ground, when...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

2013 Decision on Assignor Estoppel Designated as Precedential by PTAB

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential its October 25, 2013, decision to institute inter partes review and declined to apply the doctrine of assignor estoppel as an exception to 35 U.S.C.§311(a). Section...more

18 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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