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
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
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
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES V GENERAL ELECTRIC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes. Summary: Unrebutted evidence of non-enablement is sufficient to overcome an invalidity challenge based on a standalone §103 reference....more
It is now over 10 years since the Bilski decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In that decision and several other decisions that followed (i.e., Mayo, Myriad, and Alice), the Supreme Court pronounced...more
In the first half of 2020, several notable decisions further shaped the course of patent law, with rulings from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit impacting PTAB proceedings, as described below...more
On July 22, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued an opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC & Netflix, Inc., No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir. 2020) authorizing the U.S. Patent Trial &...more
MAYBORN GROUP, LTD., MAYBORN USA, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISISION - Before Lourie, Linn, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: An invalidity challenge, raised after the...more
United States Automobile Association (USAA), a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families, filed a surprising...more
In IPR2018-00272, the Board denied a motion to terminate brought by a Patent Owner who argued that a district court’s finding of indefiniteness required termination of the PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent. 9,393,208....more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
In the recent decision of Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit may have expanded how factual questions underpin subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101. Since the two-part eligibility...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
In Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd., the Federal Circuit found that the printed matter doctrine applies equally to physically embodied information and mental steps, and can be invoked in the...more
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the field of Patent Law (Alice Corp. v. CLS Int’l) invalidated software patents related to mitigating settlement risk. Relying on the now-infamous Section...more
The U.S. Federal Circuit recently clarified the standard that patent challengers must satisfy when attempting to invalidate patented inventions directed to new uses for known drugs. Although designated as a nonprecedential...more
As we have previously discussed on this blog, when considering an issue of patentability such as definiteness under section 112, the PTAB and a district court may properly reach opposite conclusions. In Tinnus Enterprises LLC...more
In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more
Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation, et al., No. 2016-1243 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2017). This case highlights the importance of a...more