News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation Patent Invalidity Obviousness

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Trial And Appeal Board Decision, Finding Claims Of Patents Covering CRISPR Guide RNA Technology As...

A&O Shearman on

On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Discretionary Denials in Action: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more

Irwin IP LLP

Seeing Double?  Similar Claim Terms Could Be Trouble  

Irwin IP LLP on

When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...more

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more

DLA Piper

The Federal Circuit Upholds Drug Dosing Regimen as Valid and Nonobvious

DLA Piper on

In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was nonobvious despite prior...more

A&O Shearman

The UPC’s interpretation of inventive step: does it follow the problem-solution approach?

A&O Shearman on

UPC case law on the assessment of inventive step is still evolving. Most local division (LD) decisions have indicated a slightly diverging practice from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. However, more recently, others have...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Lump Sum Settlement Licenses Insufficient to Support $X Royalty Rate...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2023-1101, 5/21/2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Stark) - Moore, C.J. The en banc Court reversed...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Undetectable Amount of Magnification IS Magnification

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more

Jones Day

Institution Denied for Insufficient Publication Evidence

Jones Day on

On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. (“ERGO Baby”). ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more

Morgan Lewis

Public Use and Estoppel Reexamined: Strategic Lessons from Ingenico

Morgan Lewis on

This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more

A&O Shearman

The CAFC Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Shield Patentees From System Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...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

Paul Hastings LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of IPR Estoppel

Paul Hastings LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of statutory estoppel that applies in District Court after the PTAB issues a final written decision in a related inter partes review (IPR). Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No....more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Interprets IPR Estoppel Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to Permit at Trial Invalidity Theories Based on Prior Use or...

Venable LLP on

On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

Jones Day on

In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more

Jones Day

INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case

Jones Day on

On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768 Patent...more

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] A New Test: Landmark Decision Overrules Framework for Design Patent Obviousness

BakerHostetler on

The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...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

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 25, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more

Irwin IP LLP

Cut! GoPro Can’t Keep Cameras Rolling After IPR Estoppel.

Irwin IP LLP on

Contour IP Holdings, LLC, v. GoPro, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04738-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2025) - The estoppel provision of the American Invents Act (AIA) (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) prevents a petitioner in an inter parties...more

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more

Jones Day

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day on

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more

252 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 11

"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