News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation Injury-in-Fact

McDermott Will & Emery

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Wades Into Article III Standing in Patent Cases Once Again

In the precedential decision of Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that dismissed a...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Puma and the Pitfalls of the “Narrow” Exclusive License

8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more

McDermott Will & Emery

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

Knobbe Martens on

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

Haug Partners LLP

Federal Circuit Finds Insufficient Evidence to Establish Standing to Appeal IPR Decisions in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

Haug Partners LLP on

On April 7 2021, the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 20-1561, — F.3d —-, 2021 WL 1287437, *1, *5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2021), held that Apple failed to establish standing to appeal inter partes review (IPR)...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

The Federal Circuit Provides New Guidance for Patent Licensees Wishing to Challenge the Licensed Patent’s Validity

The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated handed down a decision on April 7, 2021 that provides guidance on the determination of standing for patent licensees who wish to contest the validity of a patent or...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - April 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ..WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION [OPINION]  (2020-1041, April 6, 2021) (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL) - Dyk, J.  Affirming related district court judgments holding...more

Haug Partners LLP

Standing to Appeal Post-Grant Proceedings: A Brief Review of Recent Federal Circuit Opinions

Haug Partners LLP on

On April 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit decided Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., where it held that Apple lacked standing to appeal the final written decisions in two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the U.S. Patent...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Holds Apple Lacked Standing to Appeal IPRs It Initiated, Distinguishes MedImmune

On April 7, in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), upholding validity in two inter partes review...more

Knobbe Martens

Concrete Plans Establish Standing for IPR Appeals

Knobbe Martens on

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more

Troutman Pepper

Federal Circuit Review - Issue 272

Troutman Pepper on

272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceuticals Co. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more

Troutman Pepper

Article III Standing Strikes Again

Troutman Pepper on

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Appeal No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2020). Argentum and other petitioners filed IPRs against Novartis’ patent related to methods of treating...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals From The PTAB: Summaries of Key 2019 Decisions: AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d 1357...

AVX Corporation, a company that manufactures and sells a variety of electronic components including capacitors, petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Presidio Components, Inc.’s patent directed to single-layer ceramic...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Competitor Standing for Appeal of IPR Decision Upholding Claims

Again addressing the question of appellate standing for inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an IPR petitioner did not show a sufficient injury to confer Article III...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Tightens Standing Requirements For IPR Appeal

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently tightened the standing requirements for an IPR appeal in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 18-1106, 2019 WL 2079178 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019). AVX previously challenged the validity of...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed Where Party Appealing PTAB Decision Lacked Article III Standing

Knobbe Martens on

AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Mootness on Appeal from PTAB

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR), finding that the challenger lacked appellate standing because it had terminated its attempts to develop the infringing...more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

Knobbe Martens

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action,...more

Jones Day

Do Only Certain IPR Petitioners Have Standing To Appeal Adverse PTAB Decisions?

Jones Day on

Estimates are that roughly 80% of IPRs involve a challenge to a patent being asserted against the petitioner in a district court litigation. Typically, in those IPRs, if the litigation-defendant-petitioner loses at the PTAB,...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Inter Partes Review Appeals: The Federal Circuit's Standing Requirement

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Under the America Invents Act, manufacturers possess a powerful tool for combatting overly broad competitor patents: inter partes review (IPR). IPR allows any party to challenge one or more patent claims by filing a petition...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more

35 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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