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
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more
A judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to prior-art products, even if those products are “cumulative” of prior-art patents or printed publications that were...more
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that no claims challenged were unpatentable, after finding manuals relied upon as prior art did not qualify as “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings raise complex estoppel issues that courts are grappling with and patent litigants must consider. Because patent challengers can assert invalidity in three different tribunals (the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
Addressing the type of prior art that may form the basis of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated an unpatentability finding based on “applicant admitted prior art”...more
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to a webinar, "Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions," on Thursday, February 17, 2022. In conjunction with the release of the firm's...more
TIMING OF REQUEST KEY FOR BOARD DECISIONS ON MOTIONS TO TERMINATE - In Ocado Group PLC v. AutoStore Technology AS, PGR2021-00038 (July 30, 2021), Petitioner moved to withdraw its petition, arguing that efficiency favored...more
The Eastern District of Texas has rejected a plaintiff’s argument that if a patent owner concedes in an inter partes review (IPR) that a prior art reference discloses all elements of a patent claim, the reference necessarily...more
We have seen that decisions to institute an inter partes review (IPR) when the challenged patent is part of a parallel proceeding have become rare recently in light of the Fintiv factors. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,...more
Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds - In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company , Appeal No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit held that a party...more
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY - Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A...more
In an August 18 memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding agency guidance on the proper role of “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The memorandum...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently provided further guidance on what is needed to establish that a nonpatent reference is a prior art printed publication. ...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, holding that obviousness defenses based on a prior art product could not be asserted because a prior art...more
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. TCL CORPORATION - Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Publications shelved in publicly accessible libraries may be publicly...more
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
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
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2490, -2494 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2018) The Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2078, -2134 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2018) The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling following a bench trial,...more
Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more
On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s finding of invalidity of certain claims of seven Orange Book-listed...more