Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
Cross-Border Patent Assignment--How Can Foreigners Obtain Patent Assignments from Chinese Patentees?
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Five Popular Misconceptions about Patents
Pepper Hamilton Higher Education "In Brief" Webinar Series: Intellectual Property Basics - What Every Higher Education Administrator Needs To Know
6 Key Takeaways | Protect Your Business's Foundation and Future with a Strong Internal Patent System
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
IP|Trend: Starting Up Your Protection of Intellectual Property
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
Takeaways: -A requester can have a voice in ex parte reexamination prosecution. - Requesters should strategically structure their request documents to hedge against potential patent owner amendment and argument. The...more
Takeaways: -Not all patent errors are correctible via Reissue. - Restriction practice applies to Reissue applications. 1. Non-Elected Invention Recapture: A reissue application cannot add claims directed to a...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s indefiniteness determination, finding that two claim limitations – one broad and one narrow – were not contradictory since it was possible to meet...more
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance of the Patent Office’s rulemaking and enforcement. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) The Federal Circuit’s...more
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2022-1548 (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) - In its only precedential patent decision last week, the Federal Circuit addressed both a claim construction issue and a procedural issue...more
On October 26, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Monterey Research, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. affirmed a pair of final written decisions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that...more
This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response....more
A perennial challenge in patenting is to both cover your product and block design-arounds. It is understandably frustrating to incur the expense and disclosure requirements of the patent process only to find that a...more
Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C....more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
If you’ve ever wondered how they keep implanted medical devices from becoming dead weight when the batteries run out, this recent Federal Circuit decision addresses one solution—wireless charging through the skin! It also...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
On August 7, in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was required to consider an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s arguments that were raised for the...more
The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions in August, reminding parties in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings to refrain from sandbagging and raise all arguments at the first opportunity. In Axonics v....more
Addressing the issue of new claim constructions presented by a patent owner after the institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a petitioner is entitled...more
AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more
This case addresses patent eligibility under Alice and whether the district court should have afforded the patent owner leave to amend its complaint. Background - Sanderling asserted three patents sharing a common...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) obviousness decision after finding that the patent owner failed to explain how its cited extrinsic evidence supported its proposed...more
The Federal Circuit recently held that a Patent Owner could not use disclaimers argued in an IPR proceeding for claim construction within the same IPR proceeding. In CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., Case 20-2262,...more