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
In the biotechnology and chemical spaces, genus claims are often sought by patent applicants to protect not only a specific product of interest, but also as a means to protect against others making related products that...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
At the end of October, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a final written decision in PGR2023-00023, finding all claims of a patent owned by Halliburton Energy Services unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
On August 24, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings. ...more
The Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was within its discretion to reach different conclusions in a Final Written Decision (FWD) than those provided in preliminary guidance regarding...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
Last month’s newsletter discussed Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, where patent owner Alacritech appealed a final written decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (IPR)...more
Last week, the Court did not have many precedential decisions as Washington, D.C., COVID-19 or not, was in its usual August slowdown. Unlike the previous two weeks where we touched upon non-patent issues, we return (kind of,...more
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
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
In a recent final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has determined that it was not unlawful for it to modify its institution decision following the SAS Supreme Court case. In the PTAB proceeding,...more
In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) instructing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to reweigh the evidence in a manner that placed the ultimate...more
On May 14, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “Board”) Final Written Decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding holding all claims of Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Anacor”)...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2099, -2100, -2101, -2332, -2333, -2334 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit...more
On the same day that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes reviews, it ruled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu that the United States Patent and Trademark Office wrongly implemented regulations allowing...more
The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc....more
Settling an inter partes review after a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may not result in the PTAB vacating the decision....more
In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...more
On November 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (IPR2016-01096). The ’061 patent is owned by Alkermes Pharma Ireland, Ltd. and Alkermes Controlled...more
In IPR2014-01198, the PTAB found that the patent owner failed to prove that the patented invention was conceived prior to the date of the prior art, and thus concluded that the patent was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit...more